CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL Transcript of PETITION …...Mar 31, 2015 · CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL Transcript of PETITION NUMBER 1120 March 31, 2015 VOLUME 1 Printed On: April 15,

CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCILTranscript of

PETITION NUMBER 1120March 31, 2015

VOLUME 1

Printed On: April 15, 2015

UNITED REPORTERS, INC.Phone:866-534-3383

Fax: 877-534-3383Email: [email protected]

Internet: www.unitedreporters.com

SITING COUNCILPETITION NUMBER 1120 - March 31, 2015

[email protected] 866-534-3383 www.unitedreporters.comUNITED REPORTERS, INC.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL

Petition No. 1120

The United Illuminating Company Petition for

a Declaratory Ruling That No Certificate of

Environmental Compatibility and Public Need

Is Required for the Proposed Modifications to

the Hawthorne Substation Located at 180

Hawthorne Drive, Fairfield, Connecticut

Council Meeting held at the Education

Center, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 501 Kings

Highway East, Fairfield, Connecticut,

Tuesday, March 31, 2015, beginning at 3:00

p.m.

H e l d B e f o r e:

ROBERT STEIN, Chairperson

SENATOR JAMES J. MURPHY, JR.,

Vice Chairperson



2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Page 2

1 A p p e a r a n c e s:2 Council Members:3 PHILIP ASHTON4 DR. BARBARA C. BELL5 ROBERT HANNON, DEEP Designee6 DR. MICHAEL W. KLEMENS7 DANIEL P. LYNCH, JR.8 LARRY LEVESQUE, PURA Designee9

10 Council Staff:11 MELANIE BACHMAN, ESQ.,12 Executive Director and13 Staff Attorney1415 ROBERT MERCIER,16 Siting Analyst1718 For the United Illuminating Company:19 UIL HOLDINGS CORPORATION20 157 Church Street21 New Haven, Connecticut 0650622 (203) 499-200023 By: BRUCE McDERMOTT, ESQ.2425

Page 3

1 A p p e a r a n c e s (Cont'd.)2 For the Town of Fairfield:3 STANTON H. LESSER, ATTORNEY4 1 Eliot Place5 Fairfield, Connecticut 068246 (203) 336-181178 Intervenors:9 ARTHUR TOURNAS and

10 VINCENT GIANDURCO111213141516171819202122232425

Page 4

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good2 afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to3 call to order this meeting of the Connecticut4 Siting Council, today, Tuesday, March 31,5 2015, approximately 3 p.m. My name is Robin6 Stein. I'm Chairman of the Connecticut7 Siting Council.8 Other members of the Council9 present are Senator Murphy, our Vice

10 Chairman; Mr. Hannon, designee from the11 Department of Energy and Environmental12 Protection; Mr. Levesque, designee from the13 Public Utilities Regulatory Authority;14 Mr. Ashton; Dr. Klemens; Dr. Bell; and15 Mr. Lynch.16 Members of the staff, our17 staff attorney and our Executive Director,18 Melanie Bachman, and Mr. Mercier, our siting19 analyst.20 This hearing is held pursuant21 to provisions of Title 16 of the Connecticut22 General Statutes and of the Uniform23 Administrative Procedure Act upon a Petition24 from United Illuminating Company for a25 declaratory ruling that no certificate of

Page 5

1 environmental compatibility and public need2 is required for the proposed modifications to3 the existing Hawthorne Substation, located at4 180 Hawthorne Drive, Fairfield, Connecticut.5 This petition was received by the Council on6 November 5, 2014, deemed complete on7 December 4, 2014.8 As a reminder to all,9 off-the-record communication with a member of

10 the Council or a member of the staff upon the11 merits of this petition is prohibited by law.12 The parties and intervenors to13 the proceeding are as follows: United14 Illuminating Company, or UI, Attorney15 McDermott is their representative; the Town16 of Fairfield, Attorney Lesser; and grouped17 intervenors, Mr. Tournas and Mr. Giandurco.18 We will proceed in accordance19 with the prepared agenda, copies of which are20 available here. Also available here are21 copies of the Council's Guide to Siting22 Council procedures. And I believe they are23 both in the back, near the door.24 At the end of the afternoon25 session, we will recess and resume again at 7



3 (Pages 6 to 9)

Page 6

1 p.m. The 7 p.m. hearing is reserved for the2 public to make brief oral statements into the3 record. I wish to note that parties and4 intervenors, including their representatives5 and witnesses, are not allowed to participate6 in the public comment session.7 I also wish to note for those8 who are here and for the benefit of your9 friends and neighbors who are unable to join

10 us for the public comment session that you or11 they may send written statements to the12 Council within 30 days of the date hereof,13 and such written statements will be given the14 same weight as if spoken at the hearing. If15 necessary, party and intervenor presentations16 may continue after the public comment session17 if time remains.18 A verbatim transcript will be19 made of this hearing and deposited with the20 Town Clerk's Office in the towns of Fairfield21 and Easton for the convenience of the public.22 Is there any public official23 who would like to make a statement at this24 time?25 (No response.)

Page 7

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We2 have a motion. We have a request -- a3 request for intervenor, Mr. Tournas, dated4 March 13th.5 MR. ASHTON: Move to be6 accepted.7 SENATOR MURPHY: Second.8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wait a9 minute. If I haven't -- first of all, let me

10 finish. Requesting that UI meet with the11 abutters, Town of Fairfield and the other12 neighbors, regarding the project.13 Attorney Bachman may wish to14 comment.15 MS. BACHMAN: Thank you,16 Mr. Chairman.17 We received a request from18 Intervenor Tournas, dated March 13th, asking19 the Siting Council to assist with arranging a20 meeting between the abutters and UI.21 There is no prohibition on22 parties and intervenors meeting outside of23 the Council proceeding; however, this Council24 doesn't have the authority to compel the25 parties to have a meeting, and therefore, I

Page 8

1 recommend that the request be denied.2 MR. ASHTON: And I will move.3 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have a4 motion. Do I have a second?5 SENATOR MURPHY: Second.6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Motion, and7 a second.8 All those in favor signify by9 saying, aye.

10 VOICES: Aye.11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Opposed?12 Abstention? The motion carries.13 We also have a request from14 intervenor, Mr. Tournas, dated March 19,15 2015, requesting the Council to walk through16 abutting properties adjacent to the17 substation.18 Again, I'll ask Attorney19 Bachman to comment.20 MS. BACHMAN: Thank you,21 Mr. Chairman. Due to the site conditions22 today with the snow, certainly a walk through23 the backyards wasn't recommended. At this24 point, since the field review is concluded,25 this motion has become moot.

Page 9

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: So I still2 need a motion to, I guess, to deny since it's3 moot. But --4 MR. ASHTON: Deny forcing it.5 Yes, I'll move it.6 SENATOR MURPHY: Second.7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Motion and a8 second. All those in favor signify by9 saying, aye.

10 VOICES: Aye.11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Opposed?12 Abstention? The motion carries.13 I wish to call your attention14 to those items shown on the hearing program15 marked as Roman numeral ID, items one through16 53.17 Does the petitioner or any18 party or intervenor have any objection to the19 items that the Council has administratively20 noticed?21 (No response.)22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Hearing and23 seeing none, the Council hereby24 administratively notices these existing25 documents, statements and comments.



4 (Pages 10 to 13)

Page 10

1 We'll now ask the petitioner2 if you would present your witness panel for3 the purpose of taking the oath.4 MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you,5 Mr. Chairman. Members of the Council, Bruce6 McDermott on behalf of the United7 Illuminating Company. Good afternoon. I'll8 introduce the panel.9 At the beginning of my

10 immediate left, Mr. Tony Buccheri, who is11 director of Transmission and Substation12 Project Management.13 Next to him is Mr. Bohdan14 Katreczko, manager of Environmental and Real15 Estate Services, followed by Mr. Ronald16 Rossetti, senior director, Engineering and17 Project Excellence.18 Next to him is Matthew Cloud,19 Transmission and Substation engineer; David20 Bradt, director of Transmission Planning;21 Dr. Amy Williams, managing scientist from22 Exponent.23 Scattered throughout the24 audience we also have Ryan Baker, acoustic25 specialist from Black & Veatch, and Rick

Page 11

1 Landino, graphic specialist from All-Points2 Technology Corporation.3 And, Mr. Chairman, also, given4 the interest that has taken place recently5 and the -- concerning potential impacts of6 the project on the box turtle, we've asked7 our herpetologist, Dennis Quinn, to come.8 He's available. I did not identify him9 previously as a witness. But I, again,

10 thinking that it was going to be a topic of11 some interest today, Mr. Quinn is also12 available for cross-examination on -- on the13 topic of the box turtle. Mr. Quinn is owner14 of CT Herp Consultants, LLC, in Plantsville,15 Connecticut, where he has been since 2007.16 And with that, I should also17 mention, as -- as we usually do,18 Mr. Chairman, we have other members of the19 company and consultants who are present20 should the need arise for their particular21 interest. But we think with that extensive22 panel, we should be able to answer all the23 questions the Council might have, and they24 are available for swearing in.25 THE CHAIRPERSON: So if you --

Page 12

1 all of those who have been named, please rise2 so we can take the oath, please.3 D E N N I S Q U I N N,4 M A T T H E W P. C L O U D,5 R O N A L D M. R O S S E T T I,6 T O N Y B U C C H E R I,7 D A V I D B R A D T,8 B O H D A N K A T R E C Z K O,9 R Y A N L. B A K E R,

10 D R. A M Y W I L L I A M S,11 R I C K L A N D I N O,12 called as witnesses, being first duly13 sworn by the Executive Director, were14 examined and testified on their oaths15 as follows:16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you17 continue by numbering the exhibits and18 filings, please?19 MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you,20 Mr. Chairman. UI has -- I'm sorry. Is21 anyone else getting feedback, or is it just22 me? Okay. As long as the audio people are23 fine, that's good.24 We have 16 exhibits for25 identification. And I'll try to introduce

Page 13

1 most of them without using the whole panel2 for that purpose, but rely on Mr. Rossetti3 who has oversight of this project.4 Mr. Rossetti, concerning the5 petition -- I'm sorry -- Exhibit Number 1,6 the Petition for Declaratory Ruling, are you7 familiar with that docket -- excuse me --8 that document?9 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,

10 I am.11 MR. McDERMOTT: Did you12 prepare or assist in the preparation of that13 document?14 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,15 I have.16 MR. McDERMOTT: And do you17 have any changes to the petition?18 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): No, I19 do not.20 MR. McDERMOTT: Regarding the21 affidavit of service, Exhibit 2 for22 identification, did you prepare or oversee23 the preparation of that document?24 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,25 I have.



5 (Pages 14 to 17)

Page 14

1 MR. McDERMOTT: Any changes or2 modifications thereto?3 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): No,4 there is not.5 MR. McDERMOTT: And do you6 adopt that docket -- document here today?7 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes.8 MR. McDERMOTT: Exhibit 3 is9 the photo rendering of the proposed pavement

10 area of the Hawthorne Substation as provided11 by e-mail to the Council on December 5th.12 Are you familiar with that document?13 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,14 I am.15 MR. McDERMOTT: Any changes or16 revisions thereto?17 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): No,18 there is not.19 MR. McDERMOTT: And maybe we20 could take the interrogatory responses, which21 are Number 4, the Petitioner's Response to22 the Council Interrogatory Set 1; the Number23 8, Responses to Council Interrogatories Set24 2; 9, Petitioners Response to Town of25 Fairfield Interrogatory Set 1; 10,

Page 15

1 Petitioner's Response to Town Interrogatory2 Set 2; 11, Petitioner's Response to Arthur3 Tournas Interrogatory Set 1; 12, Petitioner's4 Response to Tournas Interrogatory Set 2; 13,5 Petitioner's Response to Tournas6 Interrogatory Set 3; 14, Petitioner's7 Response to Giandurco Interrogatories, dated8 March 23, 2015.9 Are you familiar with those

10 documents?11 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,12 I am.13 MR. McDERMOTT: Did you14 prepare or assist in the responses contained15 in those -- in those documents?16 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,17 I did.18 MR. McDERMOTT: And do you19 have changes to any of those documents?20 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,21 I do.22 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay.23 Specifically where? Which document?24 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): I25 have three changes regarding the first set of

Page 16

1 the Connecticut Siting Council2 Interrogatories, Number 6. It discusses the3 need to purchase and install infrared4 security cameras. That should read thermal5 imaging cameras, not infrared cameras.6 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay. Just to7 give everyone a chance to catch up with you8 and make that change, please. So that would9 be in the next to last sentence that begins

10 "Screening would require the purchase and11 installation of infrared security cameras."12 And you wish to change that to "installation13 of thermal imaging security cameras."14 Correct?15 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): That16 is correct.17 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay. Thank18 you, Mr. Rossetti.19 And the next change that you20 wish to make in the interrogatory responses?21 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes.22 It was in the Town of Fairfield set of23 interrogatories, Number 4, Attachment A. It24 was the lighting plan. There was a reference25 to the LED wattage of 150 watts. That should

Page 17

1 read 421 watts.2 MR. McDERMOTT: And just to3 help the Council, Mr. Rossetti, that's in the4 fixture list, I believe, in the upper5 right-hand corner?6 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): That7 is correct.8 MR. McDERMOTT: And, again, so9 changing 150 to 440 -- 421?

10 THE WITNESS (Rossetti):11 That's correct.12 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay. Thank13 you, Mr. Rossetti. And then, I believe, as14 you said, you had a third change?15 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): That16 is correct. Regarding the Town of Fairfield,17 the second set of interrogatories, Number 1.18 After consideration of interrogatories that19 have received -- that the company has20 received from the Town of Fairfield, UI has21 consulted with its engineering contractor,22 engineering staff, security personnel and23 management and we looked at an alternative24 security plan that can be implemented which25 would eliminate the need for lighting of



6 (Pages 18 to 21)

Page 18

1 the -- of the substation at night during2 normal conditions.3 One, the proposed lights would4 remain as designed, but they would not be5 turned on during normal operations --6 operating conditions at night. One LED light7 would remain on that would illuminate the8 substation entrance to allow personnel to9 enter the substation at night, if they are

10 deemed -- it was necessary, such as an11 emergency.12 So we would have one LED light13 facing the entrance, the gate to the14 substation, that would remain on. All the15 other lights that were mentioned in the16 lighting plan would remain off.17 MR. McDERMOTT: And18 Mr. Rossetti, that would be a modification to19 the Town of Fairfield Interrogatory Set 2,20 Number 1?21 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): That22 is correct.23 MR. McDERMOTT: Which asks24 about designing the lighting system which25 illuminates light trespass on adjoining

Page 19

1 properties. We can substitute your2 previously provided testimony for that3 answer?4 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): That5 is correct.6 MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you,7 Mr. Rossetti. Continuing along, Exhibit8 Number 5 is a letter from the -- to the Town9 of Easton regarding the project -- providing

10 notice of the project, dated January 22,11 2015. Are you familiar with that document?12 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,13 I am.14 MR. McDERMOTT: And any15 changes or revisions thereto?16 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): No,17 there is not.18 MR. McDERMOTT: Exhibit 6 is19 the petitioner's material with cover letter20 that was presented to the Town of Fairfield21 at a February 4th public information meeting.22 Are you familiar with that document?23 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,24 I am.25 MR. McDERMOTT: And any

Page 20

1 changes or revisions to any material in2 Exhibit 6?3 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): No,4 there is not.5 MR. McDERMOTT: Exhibit 7 is6 the affidavit regarding the posting of the7 sign noticing the hearing, dated March 13th.8 Any changes or modifications to that exhibit?9 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): No,

10 there is not.11 MR. McDERMOTT: Exhibit 15 is12 the noise evaluation prepared by Black &13 Veatch, dated March 24th. Are you familiar14 with that document?15 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,16 I am.17 MR. McDERMOTT: And do you18 have any changes or revisions to that19 document?20 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): No, I21 do not.22 MR. McDERMOTT: And finally,23 Exhibit 16 is the petitioner's letter24 regarding EMF assessment, dated March 24,25 2015. Are you familiar with that document?

Page 21

1 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,2 I am.3 MR. McDERMOTT: And any4 changes thereto?5 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): No,6 there is not.7 MR. McDERMOTT: So, in total,8 Mr. Rossetti, do you adopt Exhibits 1 through9 15 as the United Illuminating Company's

10 exhibits in this proceeding?11 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,12 I do.13 MR. McDERMOTT: And14 Mr. Chairman, I'd move that Exhibits 115 through 16 UI be admitted into evidence.16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there17 any objections to the admission of these18 documents into the record?19 (No response.)20 THE CHAIRPERSON: If not,21 these documents are admitted.22 (Exhibits II-B-1 through23 II-B-16: Received in evidence - described in24 index.)25 THE CHAIRPERSON: We'll now



7 (Pages 22 to 25)

Page 22

1 begin with cross-examination by staff,2 Mr. Mercier.3 CROSS-EXAMINATION4 MR. MERCIER: Thank you. Just5 in regards to the lighting change, I6 understand you'll have all the lights off7 except one. Are there lights in the facility8 now that are on at night?9 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,

10 there is.11 MR. MERCIER: And those12 will -- will they be replaced during the new13 lighting scheme?14 THE WITNESS (Cloud): The15 existing lights will no longer be necessary.16 The lights that will be in the proposed plan17 will illuminate the substation sufficiently18 for work if a -- if individuals need to enter19 for maintenance at night.20 MR. MERCIER: Okay. Thank21 you.22 I'm just going to turn to UI23 Exhibit 4. This is the responses to Council24 Interrogatories Set 1. There is a site plan25 towards the back. And I'll just be referring

Page 23

1 to that as I ask a couple of questions. I2 just want to go over some of the items that3 were mentioned during the walk-through today,4 just to clarify.5 What is the current size of6 the substation parcel with the GE land7 addition? Does anybody have that8 information?9 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): 2.8

10 acres.11 MR. MERCIER: Thank you. And12 what was the size of the parcel that was13 purchased from GE?14 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):15 Approximately 0.72 acres, point seven two.16 MR. MERCIER: And for the17 existing substation equipment, what is the --18 what's the height of the existing dead-end19 structures inside the fence line,20 approximately?21 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):22 Eleven feet for the bus work.23 THE WITNESS (Cloud): The bus24 work is at 26 feet.25 MR. LYNCH: I didn't hear

Page 24

1 that.2 THE WITNESS (Cloud): I'm3 sorry. The bus work is at 26 feet.4 MR. ASHTON: Yeah, that's the5 dead-end structure. There's a -- there's a6 pi-shaped, the letter pi, shaped dead-end7 structure connected back to the back8 structure. And he asked about that dead-end9 structure, I think.

10 THE WITNESS (Cloud): It's11 35 feet.12 MR. ASHTON: Thank you.13 MR. MERCIER: And does anybody14 have any information regarding the heights of15 the transmission towers adjacent to the16 substation that carry the CL&P lines? Any17 estimate of the height of those?18 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): I19 don't -- we don't have that information on20 us.21 MR. MERCIER: Okay. Thank22 you.23 How many existing lightning24 masts are there in the substation currently?25 THE WITNESS (Cloud): There

Page 25

1 are three lightning masts.2 MR. MERCIER: And what are the3 heights of those?4 THE WITNESS (Cloud): Seventy5 feet.6 MR. MERCIER: Okay.7 How many additional lightning8 masts will be installed?9 THE WITNESS (Cloud): So there

10 will be an additional six masts added.11 MR. MERCIER: Are those also12 at 70 feet?13 THE WITNESS (Cloud): Yes.14 MR. MERCIER: Thank you.15 Looking at the plan, there's16 some green and blue noted areas for17 screening. And just -- just assuming that18 there was permission granted by CL&P, or now19 Eversource, and the underlying landowner to20 put some height-appropriate shrubs there, how21 far away from the fence do the shrubs have to22 be so it does not interfere with the regular23 security cameras, not the -- the ones you24 just revised? I forgot what they were going25 to be.



8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Page 26

1 THE WITNESS (Rossetti):2 Thermal imaging?3 MR. MERCIER: Yes.4 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): We5 would propose that we would put the6 vegetation screening -- in this case, we7 proposed -- recommended rhododendrons --8 would be on the actual property owner's side9 of the -- the abutters, actually, of the

10 property line.11 MR. MERCIER: On -- on the12 abutter's property line?13 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,14 on the south side of the station, if that's15 what you're referring to.16 MR. MERCIER: Yes. But will17 you have a sufficient clearance between18 those -- those new shrubs and the new fence19 line to install the nonthermal imaging20 cameras?21 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes.22 MR. MERCIER: Looking at23 the -- the site plan again, over on the24 northeast corner, there's a notation for some25 new paving. Do you have the approximate size

Page 27

1 of the new paved area? Is it 5,000 square2 feet approximately or -- or some other3 quantity?4 THE WITNESS (Cloud): Yes,5 it's 5,000 square feet.6 MR. MERCIER: Okay. Now that7 you have a new -- excuse me -- an added8 paving to the existing up there by the9 building, where would the runoff actually go

10 from the newly paved surfaces? Are they11 going -- is it going down the driveway or12 towards the rear, towards the north?13 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): The14 runoff will be heading down towards the15 driveway, so southeasterly.16 MR. MERCIER: So there will be17 a slope. So it will go down the driveway?18 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):19 Correct.20 MR. MERCIER: How many catch21 basins are on the -- in the existing22 driveway?23 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):24 There's one about halfway down and two at the25 bottom.

Page 28

1 MR. MERCIER: The two at the2 bottom, is that on -- on your leased3 driveway, or is that actually in the street?4 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):5 That's in the street.6 MR. MERCIER: Okay. In close7 proximity to the driveway apron entrance, do8 you know?9 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):

10 Fairly closely, a few feet11 away.12 MR. MERCIER: Will there be13 curbs installed like there are presently at14 the site?15 I saw some curbing along the16 driveway and up near the parking area. Will17 the new paved area have any curbs?18 THE WITNESS (Cloud): The --19 the new paved area will have a curb --20 MR. MERCIER: Okay.21 THE WITNESS (Cloud): -- in22 the northeast corner where the mobile will23 need to back in. It will be a mountable24 curb, but there will be a curb around the new25 pavement.

Page 29

1 MR. MERCIER: The catch basin2 in the driveway halfway up, as you just3 mentioned, has that been evaluated for it's4 effectiveness? Is it -- could it be replaced5 at all, or is that staying as is?6 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):7 Current plans were to have it as is, but we8 can -- we can look at and evaluate having to9 rebuild. That's something we can look into.

10 MR. MERCIER: In the storm11 water pollution control plan that was in UI12 Exhibit 9, is this a plan that has to be13 submitted to the Department of14 Environmental -- excuse me -- of Energy and15 Environmental Protection?16 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): It17 is. And, actually, we've been -- because18 that is something that needs to be submitted,19 it was submitted in December of 2014. And20 it's actually been approved as of March 25th.21 MR. MERCIER: That was already22 approved?23 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):24 Correct.25 MR. MERCIER: Okay. Is it an



9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Page 30

1 official permit that you obtain? Is -- is2 that what the approval is?3 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): It's4 -- it is. We received a letter from the5 DEEP. It stayed on their website for a while6 for public comment.7 MR. MERCIER: Okay. In8 Section 3, site description, there was a9 sentence that mentioned the increase in

10 runoff. Does that only pertain to the newly11 paved surfaces?12 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):13 That's for the total -- for the total site.14 MR. MERCIER: Okay.15 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): So16 it's like a runoff coefficient for the entire17 site.18 MR. MERCIER: So with the --19 the new substation area where the capacitor20 banks are going to be, that -- that's gravel,21 but does that -- that has runoff22 characteristics associated with it?23 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): The24 gravel is pervious, so it's -- it's meant to25 help the storm water infiltrate into the

Page 31

1 ground.2 MR. MERCIER: Just one thing I3 noticed on 3.2, it stated there were no4 wetlands within 500 feet. I don't know if5 that's an error or --6 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): It's7 an error because the -- the soil scientist8 that we had hired from a different company9 did find a delineated wetland to the north.

10 MR. MERCIER: Does that error11 affect the outcome of the report that was12 submitted to -- to DEEP?13 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): No.14 MR. MERCIER: And -- and15 why -- why not?16 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):17 Because we -- taking into account the -- the18 grading of the site, and based on our19 measures that we're going have in place as20 far as erosion control and siltation, it's --21 it's a small impact from the asphalt that22 we'll be adding in the northeast. But as far23 as the fill and the cutting that are -- that24 are proposed, it's not going to affect the --25 the measures that we put in the storm water

Page 32

1 plan.2 MR. MERCIER: On the site plan3 it does show a wetland in the -- I'll call it4 the north central portion of the diagram,5 right off the property on the abutting GE6 land. What's your siltation barriers7 proposed for that particular area, from --8 from your construction zone to the property9 line with GE? What specific erosion and

10 sedimentation controls do you have in that11 area?12 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):13 After the -- that portion of the property is14 leveled, there will be, like, erosion15 blankets, the siltation fence. That's as a16 last resort so that nothing really migrates17 from the site.18 MR. MERCIER: Okay. So19 during -- during the actual grading process,20 you're going to establish some perimeter21 erosion controls?22 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): That23 will be the first thing.24 MR. MERCIER: Okay.25 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):

Page 33

1 Siltation fence.2 MR. MERCIER: What -- what3 type are you going to specify there? Are you4 going to do two rows? Are you doing some5 kind of hay bale system or --6 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): I7 don't know the details. It's described8 better in the plan.9 And Figure 4 shows some

10 details of the plan.11 MR. McDERMOTT: I'm sorry.12 Mr. Katreczko, Figure 4 of what plan?13 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):14 Figure 4 of the storm water pollution plan.15 MR. MERCIER: Do you have that16 in front of you?17 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): Yes.18 MR. MERCIER: I was just19 curious if there's two rows or one row or --20 or --21 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): The22 Town of Fairfield Interrogatory, TOF3-C.23 MR. MERCIER: Okay. I'll take24 a look. Thank you.25 Actually, I have no other



10 (Pages 34 to 37)

Page 34

1 questions at this time. Thank you.2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.3 We'll now go to questions by4 the Council. Senator Murphy.5 SENATOR MURPHY: Thank you,6 Mr. Chairman.7 I just want to go over a8 couple of matters at this time. On the9 change in lighting, you indicated that just

10 the one light -- and the other lights would11 not be on during normal conditions. What's12 not normal conditions?13 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): So14 not normal -- not normal conditions would be15 if something -- if something failed at the16 substation, if we had to do some switching to17 restore a transmission line. If we had to18 take a transformer out of service for some19 reason and it was happening at night, then we20 would have to turn the lights on in order for21 our folks to go in there and do some work.22 SENATOR MURPHY: And would it23 be all the lights have to go on, or would24 it -- the system be set up so that the lights25 would go on just in the critical area?

Page 35

1 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): All2 the lights would then be on, at that point in3 time, for the duration of whatever our4 substation electricians would have to work5 on.6 SENATOR MURPHY: Worst-case7 scenario, how long might that be some night?8 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): That9 could vary. It could be four to eight hours

10 possibly. It would vary on a case-by-case11 basis.12 SENATOR MURPHY: Okay. My --13 my knowledgable guy to my right says, for14 transformers, it would be longer, but --15 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Well,16 we're -- to clarify --17 SENATOR MURPHY: From your18 experience, how often during the course of 1219 months would you expect it not to be normal20 conditions on a given time, just a ballpark21 number?22 THE WITNESS (Buccheri): It23 would probably be less than six days per24 year.25 SENATOR MURPHY: Oh, six --

Page 36

1 six days per year. Thank you.2 The other -- the other matter3 I'd like to touch on is your Number 16. What4 is it that makes you think your EMF5 assessments are subject to a protective order6 and not to be given to us and to the public?7 MR. McDERMOTT: So it's8 primarily the line information. And I've had9 a discussion with our CEII. I don't know

10 what her --11 THE WITNESS (Rossetti):12 Analyst.13 MR. McDERMOTT: -- analyst is.14 She informs me that she has been meeting with15 the -- kind of the regional transmission16 companies, Eversource, Bangor Hydro -- some17 of the other names are escaping me -- but --18 and the regional transmission companies.19 I -- I've kind of20 cross-examined her myself as to whether or21 not line numbers were, in fact, CEII. She22 assures me that they are, that the company23 has taken that position, and the other24 companies that she's dealing with have taken25 that position.

Page 37

1 I have received from her the2 PTO AC guidelines for handling CEII materials3 and CEII requests. I would say, in that4 document, there's an exhibit, for example,5 where the circuit numbers are -- are blanked6 out. So it seems to be kind of the industry7 standard now to take line numbers out.8 SENATOR MURPHY: Why? Why is9 it you can't give us the readings like we

10 have received them in every other docket that11 we've had, at least in my experience here,12 involving meetings of this nature?13 MR. McDERMOTT: So --14 SENATOR MURPHY: I mean, on15 the -- these line things, if you want to line16 them out, but --17 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay.18 SENATOR MURPHY: You know, the19 readings, as to what they are, I mean --20 MR. McDERMOTT: No. I don't21 want to give the impression that we can't.22 I'm going to kind of look down at the far23 end. I know we had discussed this over the24 last few days with Mr. Rossetti and25 Dr. Williams. And I believe Mr. Cloud was



11 (Pages 38 to 41)

Page 38

1 actually prepared to -- we have some of the2 slides that are not CEII that do show the3 readings, I believe. But I should look down4 to my subject matter expert at the far end of5 the table, Dr. Williams, from Exponent, and6 ask her.7 THE WITNESS (Williams):8 That's correct. We do have9 some slides that show profiles of the

10 magnetic fields stepping from the fence line11 out that can be shown that do not have CEII12 information on them.13 SENATOR MURPHY: Do you have14 readings as to what it is, roughly?15 THE WITNESS (Williams): Yes.16 SENATOR MURPHY: Because every17 other docket that we've had, we've -- we've18 had these and made available. And, you know,19 I realize that the medical question, and what20 have you, but there's a tremendous amount of21 concern among the public on -- on these22 readings.23 MR. McDERMOTT: Senator --24 Senator Murphy, if I could jump in again --25 SENATOR MURPHY: Yeah.

Page 39

1 MR. McDERMOTT: -- one more2 time. The production of the EMF study was a3 result of an interrogatory, I believe.4 SENATOR MURPHY: Frankly, I'm5 surprised you didn't have it ready when you6 filed your petition.7 MR. McDERMOTT: With all due8 respect, Mr. Murphy, this is not the type of9 project the company has typically done an EMF

10 study for. In fact, since I've been doing11 siting for the company 15 years, it's the12 first time we've done one for a substation13 modification. We have done them from14 transmission lines, of course, and we've done15 them for new build substations, but we have16 not ever done one for a modification.17 So that point being aside, we18 were a little bit behind the curve when we19 got the interrogatory. Attorney Bachman was20 kind enough to tell me that it was coming, so21 we were able to launch Exponent a few days22 before it came. We got it literally the day23 before it was due. We scrubbed it that night24 and turned it around the next day so that it25 was on time for the 24th filing.

Page 40

1 I would be happy to take back2 a homework assignment to, kind of, rescrub3 the -- the CEII out so that it's a little bit4 more readable. The problem was that, in the5 draft that we received on the 23rd, that the6 redaction was going to make it essentially7 unreadable. And we didn't want to present8 the Council with something that was9 essentially unreadable, which is why we took

10 the approach we did.11 Having said all that, I could12 go back down to my left to Dr. Williams, and13 we could -- we could bring forth the -- the14 information that we have.15 SENATOR MURPHY: Well, I -- I16 think it's not only -- it's something that17 not only I, as a member of the Council, would18 like to know what they are, I think others19 would also.20 But I think what may be more21 important to us is the perception of the22 public. I mean, there -- there is a concern23 by a great number people about the health24 aspects of this. And we've heard it in --25 and you -- you've been through these hearings

Page 41

1 with us.2 MR. McDERMOTT: Yes, sir, I3 have.4 SENATOR MURPHY: And heard the5 testimony on both sides, and what have you.6 And to just say that they're fine and they're7 within the limits, and so forth, is8 wonderful, but people really like to see the9 numbers. So if you could put something

10 together for us that doesn't violate your11 privilege but gives us some satisfaction as12 to -- you're within our limits and you know13 what they are, that we could make available14 for people to read, I think it would be very15 important.16 MR. McDERMOTT: Again, we will17 absolutely take that as a homework18 assignment, Senator Murphy, and -- but we can19 also still discuss the numbers. You know,20 we're -- we're perfectly prepared to do that.21 Dr. Williams could do that today, you know,22 the existing, the background, what -- what we23 see as the levels of the EMF falling.24 SENATOR MURPHY: Well, fine.25 If you're willing to discuss it today, let's



12 (Pages 42 to 45)

Page 42

1 do it. Absolutely. Or would it be easier to2 just file what those levels are?3 MR. McDERMOTT: I -- we -- we4 can do both. To -- to get over the5 appearance for --6 SENATOR MURPHY: Let's -- why7 don't you put it in as a late file, and we'll8 get a chance to look at it.9 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay.

10 THE CHAIRPERSON: I can --11 well, the late file is one thing, but if --12 if you have the information, we have the13 public here. I'd rather --14 SENATOR MURPHY: All right.15 Let's do it.16 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- I'd17 rather either do it now, or if we had to, we18 could do it after -- after the break. But --19 MR. McDERMOTT: No, we're --20 we're absolutely prepared to discuss the21 results of the study. The only -- you know,22 just -- and we can have a very detailed23 discussion about the lack of EMF impacts from24 this project here today without getting25 anywhere near CEII discussions. And so any

Page 43

1 cross-examination that the Council or the2 intervenors have regarding the EMF impacts,3 we can absolutely have that today.4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could we5 have it starting right now?6 THE WITNESS (Williams): Sure.7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, we8 have the expert here, I --9 THE WITNESS (Williams): Sure.

10 Engineers at Exponent modeled the11 electromagnetic fields associated with the12 Hawthorne Substation expansion using inputs13 provided by United Illuminating regarding the14 existing and proposed substation15 configurations, the transmission line,16 voltages and loads, and other pertinent17 information. And they modeled the fields18 both based on annual average load conditions19 in 2021 and annual -- or peak annual loads in20 2016.21 Using this information, they22 found that the addition to the proposed23 capacitor banks would not cause any24 significant changes at the boundary in the25 electric and magnetic fields at the boundary

Page 44

1 of the site. Basically, at the property line2 of the Hawthorne substation, there was hardly3 any change in the fields. The greatest4 change was at the south side of the property5 direct -- where the transmission lines feed6 into the property.7 And at that location, directly8 underneath the lines, under average loads, it9 was two milligauss higher than existing, and

10 under peak loads, it was four milligauss11 higher. And this related to an anticipated12 change in the load that the transmission line13 would be carrying.14 And at residential distances,15 which are two --16 SENATOR MURPHY: What -- what17 were the milligauss readings beforehand that18 went up two and four?19 MR. McDERMOTT: Dr. Williams,20 to be clear, the two and the four was an21 increase level?22 THE WITNESS (Williams): Those23 were increases, yes.24 SENATOR MURPHY: I'm asking25 the base before the increase?

Page 45

1 THE WITNESS (Williams): So I2 don't have the exact measurements for the3 property line, but it's approximately -- it's4 around 35 milligauss directly underneath the5 line, and that has to do with the6 transmission line.7 SENATOR MURPHY: So it's8 32 and -- it's 37 and 39. Is that what9 you're saying?

10 THE WITNESS (Williams):11 No. It's -- it's around 35.12 And under average conditions and under peak13 conditions, it's up around 40.14 MR. ASHTON: Is that under the15 tap or under the through line?16 THE WITNESS (Williams): It's17 under the through line.18 At residential distances at19 150 feet or more, the fields differed by half20 a milligauss or less under average conditions21 and a milligauss or less under peak22 conditions.23 MR. ASHTON: What should the24 residential exposure be?25 THE WITNESS (Williams): It



13 (Pages 46 to 49)

Page 46

1 would depend on the distance from the2 location.3 MR. ASHTON: Oh.4 THE WITNESS (Williams): They5 are virtually identical to what they have6 been.7 SENATOR MURPHY: And what were8 they?9 THE WITNESS (Williams): So at

10 150 feet or more from the existing fence11 line, the fields ranged from .7 milligauss up12 to 7.7 -- or, no -- excuse me -- 8.913 milligauss.14 SENATOR MURPHY: 8.9?15 THE WITNESS (Williams):16 Correct. That's under average17 load conditions.18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you19 compare that with, I don't know, microwave?20 I mean, is there some -- some comparison of21 some appliance or something so we get a sense22 of what that is?23 THE WITNESS (Williams): So24 those fields would be similar to what you25 might find in a household. I don't have

Page 47

1 exact numbers in front of me, but for2 example, it's very similar to what you would3 see, one, five, seven, ten milligauss in a4 home.5 Exposures can be higher when6 using appliances depending on the particular7 source of the fields and your user distance.8 For example, a foot from a microwave, you9 could have up to 300 milligauss or so.

10 MR. LYNCH: Mr. Chairman? Mr.11 Chairman?12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, forgive13 me. Mr. Lynch.14 MR. LYNCH: Dr. Williams, just15 for a clarification, When we're talking16 milligauss, we're just talking about a17 magnetic field. Correct?18 THE WITNESS (Williams): We're19 talking about a magnetic field. That's20 correct.21 MR. LYNCH: Thank you.22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Klemens.23 DR. KLEMENS: Are there -- are24 there standards for exposure?25 THE WITNESS (Williams): There

Page 48

1 are no federal or State of Connecticut2 standards for exposures. There are some3 recommended exposure guidelines by the4 International Committee on Electromagnetic5 Safety and the International Commission on6 Ionizing Radiation Protection, or ICIRP. The7 most stringent of these is the ICIRP's8 recommendations, which is 4.2 kilovolts per9 meter for an electric field and 2,000

10 milligauss for a magnetic field, and that's11 for the general public.12 DR. KLEMENS: So this is well13 below that?14 THE WITNESS (Williams): Yes.15 At the property line, it -- the highest16 reading was approximately 3 percent of that17 recommendation.18 DR. KLEMENS: And even if19 someone had a variety of appliances in their20 home, this extra would not reach a tipping21 point?22 THE WITNESS (Williams):23 Correct.24 DR. KLEMENS: Thank you. No25 further questions.

Page 49

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Mercier.2 MR. MERCIER: Just to -- just3 to clarify. Did you say under average load4 at the substation fence line the readings5 were .7 ranging up to 8.9 milligauss?6 THE WITNESS (Williams): No.7 That was average loads at 150 feet from the8 fence line, the existing fence line.9 MR. MERCIER: Thank you. Is

10 it fair to say that the actual transmission11 line traversing this area is a higher source12 of magnetic fields than the substation13 itself?14 THE WITNESS (Williams): That15 is correct.16 MR. MERCIER: Okay. Thank17 you.18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Senator19 Murphy, you have any other questions?20 SENATOR MURPHY: I have no21 other questions.22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Ashton.23 MR. ASHTON: I have great24 problems with this confidentiality of --25 based on line numbers, to wit, even in the



14 (Pages 50 to 53)

Page 50

1 document before us -- I don't know what the2 exhibit number is, but it's the December 30th3 letter to the Siting Council with the4 original and 15 copies of UI responses to the5 first set of interrogatories.6 On drawing number -- Site Plan7 Drawing 25242-899, we have line numbers8 listed. And the line numbers are -- don't9 say anything specific. Fifty years ago,

10 before we had computers with big memories, we11 put in abbreviations for the line terminals,12 Hawthorne to Trumbull junction. What's the13 difference between that and a line number?14 Can anybody tell me?15 MR. McDERMOTT: Well, since I16 was the originator of the comments about the17 line numbers and why we protect them, I would18 say that I don't know. The company is trying19 to be consistent. We now have an analyst20 whose entire job it is -- is to scrub our21 documents for CEII for all kinds of PURA22 filings, FERC filings, DOE filings, et23 cetera. This is all the person does.24 I have to rely, to a certain25 extent, on what she tells me, Mr. Ashton.

Page 51

1 I've had similar conversations with John2 Morissette in Eversource. We're trying to be3 consistent across the industry.4 The exhibit you have in front5 of you, I don't know. It sounds to me like6 it was a mistake and I should be pulling it7 off the -- the website.8 MR. ASHTON: I would be so9 bold as to suggest it's a gross waste of

10 customer money. UI and Eversource are just11 -- it's ridiculous because anybody with a12 semi-trained mind, a high school senior,13 could trace a line out from Hawthorne to14 Trumbull Junction. And whether you call it15 Number 1222 or Hawthorne to Trumbull16 Junction, you've identified the line17 terminals.18 It's -- we're -- we're19 paranoid here over nothing. And some of you20 know I have a significant background in this21 area, so I'm not talking as an amateur.22 Also, I've been one who's been ramming for23 security, so I think you're barking up the24 wrong tree completely.25 Let's go to the specifics

Page 52

1 here.2 MR. McDERMOTT: And by the3 way, Mr. Ashton, I will take that back. I4 think that's an important comment, and we5 will make sure that the --6 MR. ASHTON: And by the way,7 it's not only on this petition. On the last8 petition crossing -- rebuilding the crossing9 of the Housatonic River, the same kind of

10 errors occurred. There were line11 designations in there, and you were asking12 for confidentiality. I think it's13 ridiculous. I think you wasted money. And I14 have no problem saying it out loud.15 Who owns the property in back,16 i.e., south of the substation? Is -- CL&P17 has an easement across it. Does UI own a18 portion of that or does the property owner19 behind?20 THE WITNESS (Cloud): UI does21 own a portion of the easement of CL&P, as22 well as the property abutters to the South.23 MR. ASHTON: Okay.24 THE WITNESS (Cloud): It25 bisects both.

Page 53

1 MR. ASHTON: I was so rash as2 to walk around the substation, and I admitted3 it was not the kind of thing I would4 recommend for everybody to do, but I'm5 reasonably spry for a young guy.6 To my horror and amazement,7 right near the tap structures, the two8 vertical structures which tap the9 transmission line, there's an active dump

10 there. And the Town of Fairfield -- I see a11 lawyer who, I think, represents Fairfield.12 You ought to hang your head in shame that the13 health department hasn't cracked down on14 that. There's an air conditioner in there.15 There's toilets. There's shelving. There's16 all kinds of crap. It's a disgrace. And the17 property owners also ought to hang their head18 in shame for not raising Cain about it or19 cleaning it up.20 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Ashton, I21 dare -- I dare speak again, but let me see if22 I can redeem myself on the CEII.23 Mr. Buccheri and Mr. Reed have24 spoken about the -- the situation that you25 brought up to me at the field visit, and I



15 (Pages 54 to 57)

Page 54

1 can ask Mr. Buccheri to comment a little bit2 further and hopefully to address that3 situation.4 MR. ASHTON: Okay. Good.5 I'm sorry. I missed the last6 bit.7 MR. McDERMOTT: I'm saying Mr.8 Buccheri can address the conversation that he9 and Mr. Reed had following the field visit in

10 response to the comments you made to me at11 the field review.12 MR. ASHTON: Right. Thank13 you. I'm -- I'm very happy to hear it.14 THE WITNESS (Buccheri): We --15 we will go out there and take care of what's16 out there today. And if -- if we need to put17 measures in place to control that during our18 normal sub patrols and make sure that that19 doesn't happen in the future, we'll do that.20 MR. McDERMOTT: And -- and21 just to lawyer it one second. We're not22 saying that we did it and we're responsible23 for it --24 MR. ASHTON: I didn't ask you25 if you did it.

Page 55

1 MR. McDERMOTT: -- but we're2 going to -- but we're going to take care of3 the problem.4 MR. ASHTON: That's good.5 MR. McDERMOTT: And we will6 make sure it doesn't happen going forward.7 MR. ASHTON: Good. That takes8 care of that.9 I have a minor problem with

10 the paved area and the expansion area, and11 minor only insofar as it does affect runoff.12 Hard surfaces do affect it, but the stone13 surfaces are actually beneficial in that14 they -- they cause water to percolate into15 the ground.16 And I would ask if it's17 possible to cut back on the amount of paving18 you have to do, given it's a relatively steep19 slope on the driveway. You'll get more rain20 that's concentrated and accelerated. I'm a21 past chairman of the flood control agency in22 Meriden. It's the kind of thing I've been23 spending a lot of time on trying to correct.24 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,25 we can take a look at that. And I believe we

Page 56

1 can pull -- pull back some of the paving in2 that area.3 MR. ASHTON: My point would be4 that experience tells me that even very large5 portable substations can go across crushed6 stone and, in fact, do go across crushed7 stone. And your plans, in that document I8 cited, show it being parked in what is now9 crushed stone, so that I'm not sure you need

10 a lot of paving.11 I do understand -- by the way,12 I think this is one of the best looking13 control houses I've seen. I compliment UI on14 it. It's very good. I'm going to beat you15 up where I think you're wrong, and I'm going16 to give you a pat on the back where you were17 right, and clearly you were right in the18 design of that. It's one to be followed in a19 number of stations.20 The area where I get a little21 bit concerned is the -- two things. There's22 fencing, and I'll come back to it, and then23 in the lightning mast. Do you use a code of24 protection in designing your lightning mast?25 THE WITNESS (Cloud): No.

Page 57

1 We -- we utilize the rolling sphere method.2 MR. ASHTON: The rolling3 sphere?4 THE WITNESS (Cloud): Yes.5 MR. ASHTON: Okay. Which is a6 much more recent standard. The thing that7 caught my eye is a certain substation north8 of -- northeast of Hartford yesterday, a very9 large one. You could drop two or three

10 Hawthornes in it. And they have dead-end11 structures where the ground wire is going12 into the dead-end structure. I think they13 had four 45-foot lightning masts in there.14 And you've got six new ones and three15 existing ones. There's nine in a relatively16 small area.17 I would urge that you go back18 and take a look at it to see whether they can19 be cut down because I've never seen so many20 lightning masts in a substation. I'm21 familiar with Southington substation. I22 don't think they have that many all told and23 that's like a ten-acre station.24 The other thing that bothers25 me a little bit is that you are pulling the



16 (Pages 58 to 61)

Page 58

1 fence to the west outside of the lightning2 masts. If the lightning masts could be moved3 in closer to the bus, that whole fence line4 could be pulled in. By my measure -- or the5 measurement on the drawing that I cited, the6 404A, you have -- show 26 feet from the fence7 line to part of the pasture installation,8 which is pretty wide.9 I know you've got to keep

10 distance from live parts, but insofar as11 those lightning masts can stay outside of the12 fence, and I have no -- I can't think of any13 technical reason why they have to be inside,14 you could perhaps pull that fence line in,15 save some grading, cut down your fencing, and16 save some money and make it a little better17 looking, too.18 THE WITNESS (Cloud): So the19 reference, 26 feet, is to allow for a drive20 access around the opposite side of the bus21 structure and capacitor bank between the22 lightning mast and the aluminum bus that's23 running between the two capacitor banks.24 MR. ASHTON: Well, do you have25 26 feet on the east side of the station near

Page 59

1 where the dead-end structure is?2 THE WITNESS (Cloud): Are you3 referencing by the -- where the reactors are,4 to clarify?5 MR. ASHTON: Yes.6 THE WITNESS (Cloud): I7 believe we -- we have slightly less than8 20 feet; however, there's areas for us to9 access just north of where that location is.

10 So the fence line currently is directly11 behind where the reactors are --12 MR. ASHTON: Yeah.13 THE WITNESS (Cloud): -- so we14 do not need drive access to get around the15 reactors because the fence line is there. We16 have nowhere to drive to.17 MR. ASHTON: I guess I would18 leave it to your creative imagination as to19 how to cut back the acreage you're going --20 proposing to grade, fill, stone and fence21 because I think there's more there than you22 really need. You also have 44 feet between23 your bus going into the west transformer and24 the bus support on the capacitors. And I25 don't know whether that could be tightened up

Page 60

1 at all.2 THE WITNESS (Cloud): The --3 the reason for the distance between -- that4 the capacitors are to the west is to ensure5 that if we do have to remove the transformer6 on the west side --7 MR. ASHTON: Yeah.8 THE WITNESS (Cloud): -- from9 service --

10 MR. ASHTON: Yeah.11 THE WITNESS (Cloud): -- that12 a large tractor trailer can maneuver into the13 yard for the transformer to be craned onto14 it.15 MR. ASHTON: Right. That16 would clearly say that the north capacitor17 has to give that kind of clearance, where you18 show a driveway coming in, because that's the19 way you get access; isn't it? But does it20 mean that the south one has to do it too?21 I'll leave it to you. What can you do to22 pull that down? Do you need the lightning23 stands inside the fence and why?24 THE WITNESS (Cloud): UI would25 like to keep the lightning masts inside the

Page 61

1 perimeter as -- and that way it is under a2 secure perimeter, so that no individual could3 be in contact with that lightning mast during4 a lightning storm. That way we can keep5 control of any individuals that may be in6 contact with it for safety.7 MR. ASHTON: If -- if they are8 contacting the fence, aren't they at the same9 risk?

10 THE WITNESS (Cloud): The11 lightning masts are at a higher risk of12 being --13 MR. ASHTON: Right.14 THE WITNESS (Cloud): --15 struck by lightning.16 MR. ASHTON: Right. And the17 fence is just as much at risk of being --18 carrying lightning surges to ground, isn't19 it? The fences are all grounded into the20 station mesh, aren't they?21 THE WITNESS (Rossetti):22 Mr. Ashton, what we can do -- what -- we can23 go back, and we'll take a look at this and24 see if we could become more creative and see25 if we can do something.



17 (Pages 62 to 65)

Page 62

1 MR. ASHTON: I think you've2 got a little room there. And I really would3 wonder about the number of masts, too. I'm4 just -- I've looked at four major stations in5 the past few weeks, and all of them are6 bigger than this, and all have fewer masts7 than this, and all use the rolling sphere.8 MR. McDERMOTT: But, Mr.9 Ashton, maybe I could ask the panel if they

10 could -- do you want them to address why --11 the analysis that went into the determination12 that we need that number of masts?13 MR. ASHTON: Well, I --14 MR. McDERMOTT: I mean, it's15 not --16 MR. ASHTON: -- I would17 recommend it be reviewed. If you could18 reduce the number of masts, you're reducing19 costs without sacrificing protection. I know20 what the lightning mast is there for. I21 don't disagree with that one iota, but I do22 wonder if you can't come up with a cheaper23 and better way of doing it.24 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay. I was25 just going to get on the record. You asked

Page 63

1 the question. We're putting six new masts,2 and I was going to give the panel an3 opportunity to describe why it was that we4 arrived at that number -- not some --5 MR. ASHTON: I -- I know what6 the roll is here. I've got the standard7 right here, because this was a relatively new8 one for me, and I went and did some digging9 on it. But the point is, can you do it

10 cheaper and better?11 And rolling sphere12 applications in other yards have shown that13 there were fewer masts. And so, what's14 unique about this that requires such a high15 number of masts and pushes that fence out,16 too? Okay. I won't flog about it anymore.17 The fencing -- I assume all18 your new fencing would be a mesh of an inch19 and a quarter or something like that. Is20 that now standard in UI?21 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): It22 would be a 2-inch mesh.23 MR. ASHTON: It will be what?24 THE WITNESS (Rossetti):25 Two-inch mesh.

Page 64

1 MR. ASHTON: No, it won't.2 You don't want a 2-inch mesh.3 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's4 definitely the wrong answer, but it's --5 MR. ASHTON: Yeah, go back and6 do over.7 MR. McDERMOTT: I will say8 there was a second part of the answer, if I9 could help the witness. It's a 2-inch mesh

10 with a slat so that the --11 MR. ASHTON: I know another12 company that's prominent in the state that's13 gone to one and a quarter inch standard.14 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Rossetti,15 you want to address the slats?16 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,17 the --18 MR. ASHTON: The reason for it19 is it's not climbable.20 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yeah,21 it's for physical security.22 MR. ASHTON: Right. And a23 slat can be pulled out.24 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): And25 it's also -- this slat is also used for

Page 65

1 screening as well.2 MR. ASHTON: Right. And if3 you put slats in, I guarantee in a couple of4 years you're going to have a lot of them out5 anyway. That's what happens with these6 things.7 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Just8 -- sorry -- just to clarify. The slats that9 we will be using specifically are not the

10 bottom lock type slats where they simply11 slide in and are locked on the bottom. They12 are a wing slat type, which means for the13 entire length of the 14-foot fence, there are14 winged perforations that secure it in place.15 So it's a little different than some of the16 slats that are commonly used to provide some17 level of screening. The wing slats provide18 more screening and more secure holding in the19 fence.20 MR. ASHTON: The fence jogging21 out near the reactors, is that to give you22 access around that set of reactors? You move23 it out by, my guess, by 5 or 6 feet?24 THE WITNESS (Cloud): So the25 jog on the eastern fence is to accommodate



18 (Pages 66 to 69)

Page 66

1 the backup maneuver for the mobile2 transformer. The 24-foot drive gate needs to3 be in that location to accommodate the --4 MR. ASHTON: Well, I saw that,5 and that was not my question. My question6 was, you moving the fence eastward at --7 where the reactors are, that's not where the8 mobile is going?9 THE WITNESS (Cloud): Yeah, so

10 the -- this northern portion of the fence is11 jogging out. However, we didn't feel it12 necessary to move the fence on the southern13 portion because there is no need for the14 mobile sub in that location. And by leaving15 it in that location, we minimize the amount16 of site preparation on the east side to17 minimize cost.18 MR. ASHTON: My drawing shows19 that it's moving, and I'm referring to20 drawing 404A.21 THE WITNESS (Cloud): And it's22 a very minimal move. It -- outside the23 existing perimeter, there is a flat location,24 so it is a minor adjustment of the existing25 fence to allow us to install the new fence

Page 67

1 while the existing fence remains in place2 during construction.3 MR. ASHTON: Okay. You think4 you can knock off that corner in the -- where5 you show the lightning mast just southeast of6 the reactors? The corners are where you7 accumulate junk.8 THE WITNESS (Cloud):9 To clarify, you mean angle the

10 corner?11 MR. ASHTON: Yeah, 45 degrees.12 THE WITNESS (Cloud): Yes, we13 could do that.14 MR. ASHTON: That cuts --15 allows for a little more landscape in the16 area. Now, does -- and UI, I believe, is17 willing to do some landscaping that's subject18 to CL&P's blessing -- pardon me --19 Eversource. Is that right? Eversource, have20 I got that right? I have trouble with the21 word. Is that correct?22 THE WITNESS (Cloud): That's23 correct.24 MR. ASHTON: And you'd also25 angle a southwest corner, too, couldn't you?

Page 68

1 That way you get no blind corners.2 THE WITNESS (Cloud): Yes, we3 can angle both of those corners.4 MR. ASHTON: Yeah.5 THE WITNESS (Cloud): However,6 the angling of both those corners requires us7 to install an additional camera so that we8 can see that corner, depending on the camera9 angle.

10 MR. ASHTON: Well, your --11 your camera is -- is not a pencil-thin beam.12 How wide is -- if you -- if you have -- well,13 if have a camera, how wide is your beam14 100 feet away?15 THE WITNESS (Cloud): It --16 our existing cameras will be sufficient.17 MR. ASHTON: My guess is they18 would. Yeah. Thank you. I think that does19 it for me.20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.21 Dr. Bell.22 DR. BELL: Thank you,23 Mr. Chair.24 Just to pursue this discussion25 about the lightning masts, I -- I was

Page 69

1 confused by what we -- what was said at the2 site walk, so I just want to review this. At3 the site walk, we were standing by the4 control facility, and there were two -- also5 two aerial maps on easels there. And they6 showed a lightning mast, one lightning mast7 that was to be positioned close to the CL&P8 transmission lines in -- in one corner of9 the -- of the substation. And that was the

10 only one that was referred to and it was the11 only one that was called out on this aerial12 map. It had a red and white dotted circle13 around the lightning mast.14 So I know that in other parts15 of the documents that you submitted that16 we've gone over, there are -- so then five17 other lightning masts, but we weren't talking18 about those at the site walk. Why not?19 THE WITNESS (Cloud): So the20 rendering that was created called out three21 distinct locations where work was being22 performed. It had a large rectangle around23 the capacitor banks, which includes the24 referenced five additional lightning masts.25 And then the other lightning mast on the east



19 (Pages 70 to 73)

Page 70

1 side was a stand-alone, not near any other2 work performed. So it was --3 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Cloud, I'm4 just going to interrupt. Dr. Bell and Mr.5 Cloud, the exhibit that everyone is referring6 to is off to my right here.7 DR. BELL: Oh, I'm sorry.8 Yes, it certainly is. That's exactly -- I9 just didn't see it over there. I was looking

10 straight ahead.11 MR. McDERMOTT: I thought it12 would help with the discussion so I can move13 it closer if you need to see it.14 MR. ASHTON: That shows you15 how invisible this thing is.16 THE WITNESS (Cloud): If I17 may, I will point out what I was referring to18 during the site walk-through.19 So when referencing the20 locations of major construction, we were21 standing here in front of the control22 building. And I pointed out this area for23 the capacitor banks as one of the major areas24 for construction, which encompasses the25 six -- or the five masts that are on this

Page 71

1 side located here, here, here, here, here and2 here.3 So I did not specifically call4 out the masts in this location. I called out5 this one specifically because it is not6 associated with any of the major construction7 on the west side.8 DR. BELL: Okay. Thank you.9 That helps.

10 MR. McDERMOTT: And11 Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to note for the12 record that that exhibit is being referred to13 as UI Exhibit Number 3, a slight variant of14 it, but the pictures and renderings are the15 same.16 DR. BELL: Thank you. And I17 have one other question on another area of18 the proposal. We -- we see that you have19 submitted in your materials quite a bit of20 information to SHPO. My question is, do you21 have a letter back from SHPO?22 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): Yes,23 we do. We received that on March 18th.24 DR. BELL: Okay. And is that25 included here and I just missed it, or is

Page 72

1 that something you haven't yet submitted?2 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):3 That's something that we have to submit4 because we just received it recently.5 DR. BELL: And what did the6 letter say?7 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): That8 they didn't find anything.9 DR. BELL: Thank you. That

10 answers that question.11 I -- I said I had only one12 more question, but I actually have one more13 to ask Ms. Williams, Dr. Williams. Are you14 familiar with the Council's best management15 practices document regarding EMFs?16 THE WITNESS (Williams): Yes,17 I have looked at it.18 DR. BELL: And, in your19 opinion, does that -- do the figures that you20 talked about and your report, does it show21 that you're in compliance with the Council's22 best management practices?23 THE WITNESS (Williams): So,24 consistent with those practices, they are25 maximizing the horizontal distances to

Page 73

1 surrounding residences to the new electrical2 sources. And they're doing this both by3 positioning the new capacitor banks on the4 west side, so furthest from residences as5 possible, and maintaining as well. They're6 maintaining the buffer zone between the fence7 line and the UI property line at the site.8 So yes, these are consistent with the best9 practice management recommendations.

10 DR. BELL: Thank you.11 Those are my questions12 Mr. Chair.13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.14 Dr. Klemens.15 DR. KLEMENS: Thank you,16 Mr. Chairman.17 I have questions in three18 areas. The first is going to deal with the19 Phase 1 -- Phase 2 analysis. Is there20 someone here who can speak to that?21 Okay. On the very last page,22 there's the reasonable confidence protocol23 for the laboratory analysis. And I look24 under 1A and it says, "Where the methods25 specify preservation and holding time



20 (Pages 74 to 77)

Page 74

1 requirements met".2 And it was answered, "No."3 Question Number 5B, were these4 reporting limits met remains unanswered. And5 then, at the bottom it says, in the notes,6 "If answer to Question 1, 1A, or 1B is no,7 the data package does not meet the8 requirements for reasonable confidence." And9 it says that all questions must be answered.

10 So reading that, I don't11 understand whether or not you have met the12 standard of reasonable confidence, as13 outlined by the DEEP.14 MR. McDERMOTT: Dr. Klemens,15 maybe Mr. Katreczko knows, but I don't.16 Could you tell me what you're looking at and17 what the exhibit is?18 DR. KLEMENS: The very last19 page of your TOF3B, UI Number 9, there is a20 summary sheet which goes to the DEEP which21 gives you the standard of a reasonable22 confidence protocol for this entire data23 package. And as I read the back here, you24 did not meet, at least by what you've said,25 did not meet the reasonable confidence

Page 75

1 protocol as outlined by the DEEP. Tell me if2 I'm wrong?3 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):4 Thank you. I believe what you're reading is5 referring to the method used for preservation6 time. So I think -- I think that's a7 specific -- they maybe didn't use the proper8 preservation and holding requirements, but9 that doesn't negate the entire approval of

10 the plan --11 DR. KLEMENS: Well, why does12 it say --13 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): Part14 of the laboratory.15 DR. KLEMENS: It says the data16 package does not meet the requirements for17 reasonable confidence. If 1A or 1B is no, it18 doesn't meet -- it does not meet the19 requirements for reasonable confidence. Can20 you explain that to me then, please, sir?21 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): I22 have no answer for that. I have not -- I did23 not do this report.24 DR. KLEMENS: You didn't do25 this report?

Page 76

1 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): I2 did not. This is a laboratory analysis, so I3 do not work for that laboratory.4 DR. KLEMENS: So how can we5 get this information -- find out whether or6 not we can rely on these results?7 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): I8 can follow up by calling the manager of the9 laboratory and, you know, the confirmation

10 that -- that these protocols were indeed11 followed.12 DR. KLEMENS: Well, what you13 submitted, they weren't. So either the sheet14 is wrong -- something doesn't line up for me.15 That's my first set of questions. Okay.16 The next -- the next question17 has to do with wetlands. And it says -- I18 don't even know what the number of this -- is19 there a number on this? This is the20 December 30, 2014, the first set of21 interrogatories. On the top of the BL22 wetlands report it says "Witness Shawn23 Crosby." Is Shawn Crosby here to answer24 questions about this report?25 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): I

Page 77

1 will answer for him. He is in the audience2 if need be.3 DR. KLEMENS: Is he in the4 audience?5 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): He6 is.7 DR. KLEMENS: He is. Are you8 a wetlands scientist, sir?9 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): I am

10 not.11 DR. KLEMENS: Is Mr. Crosby a12 wetlands scientist?13 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): He14 is not.15 DR. KLEMENS: Is there a16 wetland scientist who can answer these17 questions among your panel?18 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):19 The --20 MR. McDERMOTT: There is not,21 but we can have, as we did in the Bridgeport22 project, we can have the wetlands scientist.23 DR. KLEMENS: I kind of hoped24 that after the Bridgeport project one would25 have anticipated that these questions would



21 (Pages 78 to 81)

Page 78

1 come up and that I'd like to speak to the2 wetlands scientist because there are3 questions about this report.4 And the very first question I5 have is -- is there is a Ms. Rayner Hubner,6 which I imagine is someone who works for BL,7 identified a potential vernal pool right off8 the site. She says that right in the report.9 In the field visit today, I

10 looked on the property that you now own and11 saw it very wet. I saw evidence of -- around12 the trees of roots exposed. To me, it looked13 like at least part of that property was a14 wetland. And what I don't see on this was15 did anyone look at that? Was there any16 investigation of that wet bowl that feeds17 from your property under the fence to this18 wetland that is on the GE property?19 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): The20 soil scientist did do her analysis on our21 site as well as adjacent properties and --22 and that was not identified.23 DR. KLEMENS: She looked at24 that entire area that was wet when I was down25 there walking, looking at it, including the

Page 79

1 area where the roots were exposed by the2 percolating water right at the fence line,3 and determined that was not a wetland or a4 watercourse?5 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): This6 is what her report says.7 DR. KLEMENS: Maybe she could8 come on the continue. We're going to have a9 continuation, so maybe she could come to that

10 continuation so I could ask the questions.11 MR. McDERMOTT: She -- she12 will be here.13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Hannon14 has a follow-up.15 MR. HANNON: And to follow up16 on that, I'm curious as to whether or not the17 raw data is available, where were the test18 pits done, what was the result of modeling,19 anything along those lines. Not just saying20 in a report there are no wetlands there.21 I mean, I agree with22 Dr. Klemens, that that -- the area that we're23 looking at is somewhat questionable. There24 are some indicators that it could very well25 be a wetland area. But I'd like to see some

Page 80

1 of the data that was actually taken at that2 site to determine whether or not it was or3 was not a wetland soil.4 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): We5 can do that.6 DR. KLEMENS: Because my7 concern is that, depending where the wetland8 is, you have a fill and a fence that's going9 in. I'm not even convinced you're not

10 actually right up in a wetland or potentially11 filling a wetland. So I think we do need to12 know that.13 Also, you have no data on14 whether or not that -- that area on the GE15 property -- she says it's potentially a16 vernal pool. You have no further data on17 whether or not that is a vernal pool.18 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):19 Correct. Which she outlined was a freshwater20 -- that is correct that she only identified21 that that area flagged was a freshwater22 inland wetland.23 DR. KLEMENS: And she said it24 was potentially an amphibian breeding habitat25 in her report. It's right on page -- page

Page 81

1 number 6: The wetland located out by the2 project site, and as this wetland is3 isolated, there is a potential it acts as4 breeding habitat for amphibians during the5 spring season.6 And so my next question then7 is, if it is a vernal pool, is the fence or8 the structure or the fill that you are9 proposing is that within what would be called

10 the first hundred feet, the vernal pool11 envelope? That may be something else when12 she comes in we could discuss, if it's a13 vernal pool, how that affects the placement14 of what you're doing.15 MR. McDERMOTT: So noted.16 DR. KLEMENS: The last set of17 questions -- I wouldn't have wanted Mr. Quinn18 to have made this trip for -- for naught.19 We're going to talk about box turtles. Is20 Mr. Quinn available?21 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Quinn, why22 don't you come up and sit to the left of Mr.23 Buccheri here. I think there's a chair.24 DR. KLEMENS: Mr. Quinn,25 you've seen the letter that came from



22 (Pages 82 to 85)

Page 82

1 Collette Adkins -- Have you reviewed that? --2 from the Center for Biological Diversity?3 THE WITNESS (Quinn): Yes, I4 have read that and reviewed that letter.5 DR. KLEMENS: And is, to your6 knowledge, Ms. Adkins a biologist?7 THE WITNESS (Quinn): Not to8 my knowledge, she's not.9 DR. KLEMENS: Thank you.

10 You're familiar with the box turtle in11 Connecticut.12 THE WITNESS (Quinn): That is13 correct.14 DR. KLEMENS: And looking at15 the overall landscape that you've see around16 the site, how -- what is your professional17 judgment as to the landscape integrity for a18 viable population of box turtles to occur in19 that area?20 THE WITNESS (Quinn): It is my21 professional opinion, within the adjacent22 forests surrounding the substation, that23 habitat is suboptimal for the Eastern box24 turtle.25 DR. KLEMENS: Could you

Page 83

1 elaborate why?2 THE WITNESS (Quinn): One,3 it's heavily developed; two, if you -- there4 is -- box turtles use habitats seasonally,5 and the biggest impact that would -- would6 occur due to the additional tree clearing7 would be to the overwintering habitat of the8 Eastern box turtle which tends to be within9 mature upland forest.

10 The forest within the adjacent11 surrounding area of this substation, to me,12 is suboptimal hibernacula areas, or13 suboptimal forests for hibernacula areas to14 occur in. A couple of reasons, one has15 already been mentioned, this seep of water is16 not typically conducive to an actual area of17 hibernation; and two, they typically do not18 hibernate within proximity to forested edges.19 They tend to be within the forest interior20 when selecting suitable hibernacula.21 DR. KLEMENS: And you looked22 at the overall habitat matrix that this --23 this station -- this substation is located.24 One of the things I'm grappling with is we25 have a report from the Natural Diversity

Page 84

1 Database of, I guess, a single box turtle.2 Could you maybe give some input into what3 single box turtle records may mean in terms4 of population viability?5 THE WITNESS (Quinn): Right.6 When you're -- when you're dealing with box7 turtle populations, box turtles are a8 long-lived species. One individual does not9 give an indication on the actual population

10 itself. You would need to do an extensive11 study out there and determine, you know, the12 demographics of the population to determine13 the suitability, looking at various things14 about the population including sets ratios15 and, of course, you know, the demographics of16 the individuals within the population,17 specifically the age.18 The one individual that was19 located was -- was found along the actual20 power line easement itself in the early21 successional habitat that is created by22 these -- maintaining these easements. That23 in itself does not lend credence to the fact24 that it's a healthy population out there.25 One would need to go out and do a full box

Page 85

1 turtle survey to make those sort of2 assessments.3 DR. KLEMENS: Have you4 actually found areas where you found odd box5 turtles that, basically residual populations,6 and they live for a while because they're so7 long lived and it's --8 THE WITNESS (Quinn):9 Absolutely. One of the things

10 when I do an assessment of habitat for box11 turtles, I look for suitable nesting habitat.12 One of the things you absolutely need is the13 nesting area to be within, intact and14 associated with the forested habitat to15 sustain an actual large-scale or functioning16 population of box turtles.17 If there is nesting occurring18 on the site, it would likely be along the19 power line easement, but when looking at a20 long-lived species such as the box turtle,21 one of the most important things, personally,22 for me is looking at the sex ratios. The sex23 ratios can tell you a lot about a population24 of box turtles.25 For instance, if you have an



23 (Pages 86 to 89)

Page 86

1 overabundance of male box turtles, it would2 tell you that your nesting grounds are likely3 bisected by some sort of a structure,4 potentially a roadway where box turtles would5 inadvertently be getting killed. And without6 doing such work, I would not be able to7 attest that there is a strong population8 there, but of course this one box -- box9 turtle is not evidence that there is.

10 DR. KLEMENS: And you have11 reviewed the protocols that the applicant12 is -- is proposing, the box turtle avoidance13 protocols? They're sort of the standard DEEP14 protocols that are part of this submission.15 Do you think that would adequately protect,16 if there is box turtle in that area or a few17 box turtles, would they be adequately18 protected by this -- this protocol?19 THE WITNESS (Quinn): They20 absolutely will be protected by this21 protocol.22 DR. KLEMENS: Do you agree23 with -- in there there's a seasonal24 restriction that's April 1st through25 September 30th, that was suggested in

Page 87

1 Collette Adkins' letter. Do you think that2 that is prudent to have no activity going on3 there, or do you believe that activity on the4 site could be managed by these -- by these5 protocols?6 THE WITNESS (Quinn): I think7 that the activity period called out is8 reasonable. And I think that construction9 activities should take place during a

10 seasonal restricted period as to not11 potentially impact turtles that could be12 overwintering.13 DR. KLEMENS: Can I ask you14 about turkeys?15 THE WITNESS (Quinn): I'm not16 a turkey expert.17 DR. KLEMENS: Is there anyone18 who could talk about turkeys here?19 MR. McDERMOTT: We are without20 a turkey expert.21 DR. KLEMENS: Okay. I just22 wanted to -- do you have any sense -- do you23 know -- do you know if the turkey is on any24 state lists?25 THE WITNESS (Quinn): The

Page 88

1 turkey is a game bird prohibited from being2 on state lists is my understanding. It's a3 game species.4 DR. KLEMENS: So it's not a --5 THE WITNESS (Quinn): -- but6 I'm not an expert.7 DR. KLEMENS: Right. It's not8 an endangered, threatened or special concern9 species?

10 THE WITNESS (Quinn): Oh,11 absolutely not. No, absolutely not. It's12 found in every town in Connecticut.13 DR. KLEMENS: Increasing?14 THE WITNESS (Quinn):15 Absolutely increasing. No16 question about it.17 DR. KLEMENS: Do you have any18 evidence that turkeys are injurious to other19 wildlife? I know from -- let's say, for20 example, things like rattlesnakes and that?21 THE WITNESS (Quinn): They can22 be. They absolutely can be. One -- there's23 been documented cases where they have24 actually preyed on juvenile rattlesnakes in25 the past, yes.

Page 89

1 DR. KLEMENS: So basically,2 on -- on the big spectrum of species, we3 should be concerned about, we should be4 concerned about the box turtles but maybe not5 the turkeys so much?6 THE WITNESS (Quinn): If I had7 to be concerned about one, I would choose the8 box turtles for sure.9 DR. KLEMENS: Thank you. I

10 have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.12 Mr. Hannon.13 MR. HANNON: Thank you,14 Mr. Chairman.15 To follow up on something that16 Mr. Ashton asked earlier, I'm just curious17 about this dump area that he mentioned. And18 I'm just wondering whether or not it's19 accessible to vehicles, but yet, out of the20 way so it kind of invites illegal dumping.21 I'm just curious if that may have been what22 happened over here.23 THE WITNESS (Buccheri): Yeah.24 I -- I didn't walk that area, so I'm not25 certain on whether it's accessible to



24 (Pages 90 to 93)

Page 90

1 vehicles or not. I mean, I don't believe our2 vehicles can get back there at this point.3 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): That4 -- that area is actually between our fence5 line and the neighbor's property lines. It6 does not appear that there can be any7 vehicles getting back there, but obviously,8 some of the things that Mr. Ashton found is9 quite heavy, so I can't comment on how that

10 got there.11 MR. HANNON: You'd be amazed12 on what we find on state property, and there13 are no vehicle access points there either14 so -- I do have a couple of follow-up15 questions.16 Let's see. On -- this is17 Interrogatory TOU dash -- I'm assuming it's18 III-22. And the question was regarding19 fugitive dust exposure. And the response20 was: "When conditions are conducive to21 generating dust from construction activities,22 fugitive dust control measures will be23 implemented." Who decides when conditions24 are conducive to generating dust?25 Because it seems that that

Page 91

1 response is a little less likely to work than2 what was actually put in the response for the3 Town of Fairfield because they're talking4 about actually going in and spraying and5 things of that nature. So I just want to6 make sure, who's going to be responsible for7 making sure that as truck traffic is coming8 in, things of that nature, the -- the site is9 maintained so that it's not creating any type

10 of adverse impact on the surrounding11 properties due to dust issues?12 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): It13 will be the construction contractor that will14 be responsible. And I think maybe the15 difference in responses from the Town of16 Fairfield versus Connecticut Siting Council,17 I think we were -- we were specifying the18 storm water control pollution plan as well as19 if there is any type of civil activities20 being carried on on-site, that just on a21 daily basis, we're going to be using all22 kinds of methods and controls to keep any23 type of dust-generating activities,24 whether -- whether it be cutting or anything25 else.

Page 92

1 MR. HANNON: And I'm assuming2 you're talking about using water?3 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):4 Correct.5 MR. HANNON: Where would the6 water come from?7 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): Wet8 methods.9 MR. HANNON: Where would the

10 water come from?11 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): From12 a truck, from a -- one of those --13 MR. HANNON: Yeah. But I14 mean -- so you're not going to have any type15 of a well on site?16 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): No.17 MR. HANNON: Can we draw the18 water from the site?19 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): Some20 water will be drawn from the site and others21 from trucks that carry water on them.22 MR. HANNON: And the reason23 I'm going in that direction is because I'm24 not sure exactly what you're referring to25 with the washout areas. I think there are a

Page 93

1 couple of different washout areas that are2 proposed.3 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):4 There's going to be --5 MR. HANNON: You're using6 water there. So where is the water coming7 from? You're talking about storing water, so8 there's no overflow. Where is that water9 eventually going to go, and what's it being

10 stored in? I mean, are you talking about11 putting it into some type of a container and12 then eventually it's going to be pumped out?13 And I'm just kind of curious as to what's14 being proposed with these washout areas.15 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): I16 think the washout area is -- is going to be17 self-contained where the vehicles, that18 before they leave, will be washed down.19 MR. HANNON: Uh-huh.20 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): So,21 as you say, it's going to be contained within22 that area and then taken off-site. So it23 will be in a containerized vehicle.24 MR. LEVESQUE: Excuse me.25 That -- that driveway area in front of the



25 (Pages 94 to 97)

Page 94

1 building, I thought I saw a Call Before You2 Dig marking for water line?3 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):4 That's because we -- we abandoned our well.5 And we're -- we're going to get -- we already6 got approval to have the water company give7 us a direct line.8 MR. LEVESQUE: So the line9 that was marked is not an active water line?

10 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): I11 believe that water line has been cut over and12 the well has been abandoned.13 MR. HANNON: All right. I14 guess where I'm still a little confused is15 there's a wheel washout station at the16 construction entrance and exit to the site,17 but then there's an additional self-contained18 washout station. So what's the difference19 between this additional self-contained and20 then the other washout stations, or are they21 all the same? Because that -- that's where22 I'm kind of confused on this. And what is23 happening with the water that is being used24 for the washing?25 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Rossetti,

Page 95

1 would this be a question for one of our Black2 & Veatch? Just -- I'm trying to get the3 right people on the panel to answer the4 question.5 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): We do6 have a concrete -- concrete truck washout7 that would be in a contained area. And that8 will be -- the water and everything will be9 taken off-site for that. I don't know if

10 that helps clarify your -- the question, or11 the answer.12 MR. HANNON: But my13 understanding is there's going to be these14 wash areas in different locations. And it's15 not referring in the document that they are16 all these self-contained systems. So I guess17 my basic point then is are they all18 self-contained -- self-contained systems that19 you're proposing to use on-site?20 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): I'll21 have to get back to you because I believe22 that was going to be just that one location.23 MR. HANNON: Okay. So if it24 is just that one, then what happens to the25 water at the other wheel wash areas?

Page 96

1 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):2 There are no other wheel wash areas, just at3 that --4 MR. HANNON: But that's not5 what the report states. I'm just going by6 what I read in the report. This is item 552,7 Town of Fairfield, Question 3, I believe.8 And this is part of the report that came in.9 Item 552 says: "UI will construct a wheel

10 washout station at the construction entrance11 and exit of the site and an additional12 self-contained washout station adjacent to13 the construction activities."14 So, to me, that's at least two15 different units, and I'm trying to get an16 answer to what's happening with the water17 with the one that doesn't appear to be a18 self-contained system.19 MR. McDERMOTT: I'm sorry,20 Mr. Hannon. I'm -- I'm struggling. What is21 552 that you're referencing to?22 MR. HANNON: This report,23 under post construction control measures.24 This was the storm water25 pollution control plan prepared by Conestoga

Page 97

1 Rovers & Associates.2 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): Yes,3 you are correct that the wash waters from4 both of those locations will be removed5 from -- from the site at the -- at the end of6 all the activities. So, in other words, at7 the end of the wheel wash station, the8 construction entrance, once that washout is9 complete for the vehicles, that water will be

10 disposed of, as well as up on top, that other11 self-contained one that's adjacent to the12 construction activities, that will also be13 characterized and disposed of properly.14 MR. HANNON: I'm -- I'm -- you15 know, I apologize. I'm still just having a16 problem with the one, in fact, the wheel17 washout station at the construction entrance18 in that it doesn't say it's self-contained.19 So is it self-contained or not? And if it's20 not self-contained, how are you storing the21 water until the activities are done and it22 can be removed off-site?23 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Hannon,24 could we just have a second, please?25 MR. HANNON: Sure.



26 (Pages 98 to 101)

Page 98

1 (Pause.)2 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Hannon, I3 took a break because I thought it would help,4 but I don't think it did. Why don't -- let5 me take it as a homework, and we'll get you6 the answer.7 MR. HANNON: I'm just trying8 to make sure that the wastewater that is9 generated by these wheel washouts is not

10 being disposed of in an inappropriate way.11 That's the bottom line. So --12 MR. McDERMOTT: It's a simple13 question. I hope there's a simple answer,14 and we will get to that as soon as we can.15 MR. HANNON: I have no other16 questions.17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.18 Mr. Levesque.19 MR. LEVESQUE: I don't have20 any questions that weren't already answered.21 Thank you.22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.23 Mr. Lynch.24 MR. LYNCH: Thankfully, going25 last, most of my questions have been

Page 99

1 answered, but I do have an area of concern,2 and that's with the -- the trucks that are3 come -- delivering your equipment, whether it4 be the fences or the, you know, your5 electrical equipment, are they coming in on a6 trailer because you've got your permanent7 turnaround area?8 THE WITNESS (Cloud): Some of9 the equipment will be delivered on a trailer,

10 yes.11 MR. LYNCH: All right.12 Because my question really is, when they --13 you do the turnaround and you back into the14 substation, how is it -- how is it being15 off-loaded? You mentioned a crane earlier.16 Well, where is the crane?17 THE WITNESS (Cloud): So a18 crane, a small crane would be brought to the19 site to off-load some of that equipment.20 MR. LYNCH: Would it be inside21 the substation or outside the substation?22 THE WITNESS (Cloud): It would23 be in the northeast corner of -- of the yard,24 so that is where the trailers would position25 themselves to be off-loaded.

Page 100

1 MR. LYNCH: Okay. So then2 the -- the trailer isn't actually backing3 into the substation like you said this4 afternoon, or is it?5 THE WITNESS (Cloud): So what6 I was referencing with the backup maneuver is7 UI's mobile transformer, which positioned8 itself in the yard, which is separate from9 the tractor trailers that would deliver

10 equipment to the yard for the proposed11 construction.12 MR. LYNCH: Okay. Thank you.13 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Mercier.15 MR. MERCIER: Yes. I think I16 forgot to ask this earlier about some of the17 height of the equipment. The new capacitor18 equipment, what's -- what's the total height19 of that?20 THE WITNESS (Cloud): Are21 you -- you referencing the highest piece of22 equipment?23 MR. MERCIER: Yes.24 THE WITNESS (Cloud): So 2625 feet. That is the highest piece of

Page 101

1 equipment. The masts themselves, however,2 will be 70 feet. So --3 MR. MERCIER: Yes, yes.4 THE WITNESS (Cloud): -- the5 bulk of the electrical energized equipment is6 26 feet.7 MR. MERCIER: Thank you for8 that clarification. Thank you.9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Klemens.

10 DR. KLEMENS: I also have one11 question I forgot in my notes. You're going12 to be using rhododendrons for screening. Is13 that what you're proposing?14 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,15 that's correct.16 DR. KLEMENS: And you're aware17 that rhododendrons are a favorite deer food.18 Have you considered any other types of19 screening that may not be as attractive to20 deer?21 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): We22 are open for any of those considerations.23 DR. KLEMENS: Okay. Thank24 you.25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We'll



27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Page 102

1 now go to cross-examination by the Town of2 Fairfield. Would you please come up and --3 to this table, please.4 MR. GIANDURCO: I would ask5 Mr. Tournas to go first, and then I'll follow6 up, if that's acceptable to you.7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure. Okay,8 Mr. Tournas.9 MR. McDERMOTT: And to -- and

10 to be clear, Mr. Chairman, this is cross by11 Mr. Tournas and Mr. Giandurco, because12 they've been grouped?13 THE CHAIRPERSON: They've been14 grouped, so I don't know if Mr. Tournas is15 speaking for both of them and --16 MR. GIANDURCO: No.17 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I'm not18 sure whether we should have grouped the town,19 too, but I assume you're going to be20 cross-examining separately. Right?21 MR. GIANDURCO: Right. Yes.22 MR. LESSER: I don't have a23 lot.24 MR. McDERMOTT: Excuse me,25 Mr. Chairman. I object to that. The -- the

Page 103

1 grouping is Mr. Tournas and Mr. Giandurco2 together, so they should be cross-examining3 together. They're not independent.4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I5 thought they were.6 MR. McDERMOTT: Well, I think7 the Council considered a motion in -- in8 granting the intervenor status for Mr.9 Tournas and Giandurco. Part of the approval

10 was that they be grouped together.11 THE CHAIRPERSON: They are, so12 you --13 MR. TOURNAS: Is that better?14 I don't think either of us have a problem of15 being grouped together as long as, you know,16 we can share our answers and questions and17 question the witnesses.18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, now19 I'm totally confused. Where's Mr. Giandurco?20 MR. GIANDURCO: I'm here.21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Why aren't22 you --23 MR. GIANDURCO: I was doing24 that. I just wasn't sure.25 THE CHAIRPERSON: You're

Page 104

1 supposed to be there, and I'm not sure why2 the Town is -- if the Town --3 MR. GIANDURCO: I just had4 questions. I was going to sit next to him.5 THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean,6 they've had a number of interrogatories, I7 think.8 MR. TOURNAS: We apologize.9 It's a first time for us, and we are doing

10 the best we can.11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now,12 you can decide in what order, or if one is13 speaking for the other.14 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. Gary15 Azarian was going to be called as a witness,16 but because of his work he had to leave.17 THE CHAIRPERSON: But wait a18 minute. Your cross -- this is -- this is --19 you will have a separate opportunity to20 present, to -- to be cross-examined, but21 right now, your only -- your role is to22 ask --23 MR. TOURNAS: Okay.24 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- questions25 of the applicant.

Page 105

1 MR. TOURNAS: We apologize.2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.3 MR. TOURNAS: A lot of the4 questions have been already answered. So5 just one question. You're requesting a6 70-foot lightning mast on the east side on7 the existing station. That station has been8 there since the 1980s or seventies, if I'm9 correct to say. Why is that needed now?

10 THE WITNESS (Rossetti):11 Again, when we mentioned before with the12 rolling sphere methodology of looking at our13 lightning -- lightning protection, any time14 we do an existing modification, we took a15 look at the entire yard to see what the16 lightning protection was. And when we did17 the rolling sphere method of determining that18 protection, it did call for a lightning mast19 in the southeast corner of the yard.20 MR. ASHTON: Mr. Rossetti,21 just as a clarification. The rolling sphere22 method, I believe, is a technique to23 determine the location, height and number of24 lightning masts to offer lightning protection25 to the substation. Is that fair to say?



28 (Pages 106 to 109)

Page 106

1 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,2 that's correct.3 MR. ASHTON: Thank you.4 MR. TOURNAS: I did have --5 MR. LYNCH: Excuse me.6 Mr. Tournas, could you just move the7 microphone in front of you. Your voice is8 carrying away from you here.9 MR. TOURNAS: I know we did

10 have a few questions about the lighting,11 however. Just to confirm, lighting will not12 be on at night, only if there's an intruder13 or if equipment does have to be repaired.14 Correct?15 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): The16 only light that would -- that will stay on is17 this -- that -- our new proposal is one LED18 light facing the substation gate entrance.19 That is correct.20 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. Now, the21 height of the lightning rods, you're saying,22 will be 70 feet?23 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): That24 is correct.25 MR. TOURNAS: Can they be

Page 107

1 lowered?2 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Yes,3 they could be lowered, but then we run the4 risk of adding more lightning rods at a lower5 height, or lightning masts at a lower height.6 MR. TOURNAS: Now, the7 Trumbull station, can you tell me the height8 of those lightning masts?9 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Those

10 are also 70 feet.11 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. Because12 according to the decision made by the Council13 when that station was built, it said 55 feet,14 so I'm just questioning that.15 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): We16 can double-check on that, but I -- I believe17 they were 70 feet. But we can -- we can18 double-check that.19 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. Well, I20 have the decision if you want to see it.21 MR. McDERMOTT: No, we're --22 well -- but we need to confirm that we did23 what the decision said. And there's also a24 development and management plan that was25 filed subsequent to the approval, which would

Page 108

1 have addressed the height of all the2 structures. So we'll have to check that3 and --4 MR. TOURNAS: So you'll get5 back. Okay.6 MR. McDERMOTT: -- the7 approval as well.8 I'm sorry. And that was9 Trumbull, Mr. Tournas?

10 MR. TOURNAS: I'm sorry.11 MR. McDERMOTT: That was the12 Trumbull substation you're referencing?13 MR. TOURNAS: Yes.14 And how many lights are on15 that Trumbull station?16 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Chairman,17 I'm going to object to the questions. Again,18 it's hard to make analogies between projects.19 Each is unique, although somewhat similar.20 And simply because we have X number of lights21 or a lightning mast or a height at Trumbull22 doesn't mean that it's necessarily applicable23 to this substation or the Shelton substation24 or the Singer substation.25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, in

Page 109

1 view of the fact that they've just told us2 that they're only going to have one light on,3 is there any relevance to the question?4 MR. TOURNAS: Well, it's the5 number of lightning masts that will be6 included on the Hawthorne station. That's my7 only question.8 MR. McDERMOTT: I'm sorry.9 Are we discussing lightning or lighting?

10 MR. TOURNAS: At this point11 light masts.12 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay.13 Illumination.14 MR. TOURNAS: Illumination.15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Again, why16 is that relevant, since they're only going to17 have one that's going to be --18 MR. TOURNAS: Well, the height19 will make a difference from looking at20 different perspectives from the abutters,21 from the cascades.22 THE CHAIRPERSON: If you have23 that answer now, that's fine. If not, I'm24 not going to, you know, spend more time25 comparing some -- another substation that may



29 (Pages 110 to 113)

Page 110

1 or may not have any relevance.2 MR. McDERMOTT: Appreciate3 that. We have no problems answering4 questions about this project, but I just5 don't want to be in a comparison mode between6 different UI projects. So to the extent the7 panel knows, Mr. Rossetti?8 MR. TOURNAS: Would you be9 able to tell me if any of the security

10 cameras will intrude on any of the abutters'11 properties?12 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Tournas,13 we're happy to answer that question. I14 just -- do you want the number of lighting15 masts answered?16 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): There17 will be five lighting, or illumination masts18 installed at Hawthorne.19 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay. Now,20 can someone field question about the -- the21 cameras?22 I will say, Mr. Ashton, the23 range of the cameras is a CEII issue for the24 company. I --25 MR. ASHTON: It's perfectly

Page 111

1 reasonable to make that confidential.2 MR. McDERMOTT: So we -- we3 can have a -- we can have a little bit of a4 discussion, but in terms of the strength and5 the, you know, whatever other -- the6 capabilities of the cameras, we have to be a7 little bit sensitive on that.8 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. Just our9 concern is a couple of neighbors with

10 swimming pools that are close to the11 borderline, and our -- their concern is the12 security cameras.13 MR. McDERMOTT: I appreciate14 that, Mr. Tournas. And I think we can answer15 that question with Mr. --16 MR. TOURNAS: Okay.17 MR. McDERMOTT: -- Mr. Cloud.18 THE WITNESS (Cloud): So the19 proposed security cameras are there to20 monitor the areas directly in close proximity21 to the perimeter of the substation fence as22 well as the interior of the substation yard.23 Their intent is -- is not to look outside the24 direct proximity of the fence line onto25 abutter properties.

Page 112

1 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. For the2 fencing, is there any other proposals that3 can be made or any type of material?4 You've mentioned in your5 questions to interrogatory -- interrogatory,6 that there are alternative methods. Can you7 explain those?8 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): If9 there are alternatives to putting in a fence,

10 like we've mentioned before, there's things11 like putting up a wall, for example.12 MR. TOURNAS: Any others?13 THE WITNESS (Rossetti):14 That's -- that's really the two that we're15 familiar with.16 MR. GIANDURCO: I'll just step17 in with a question. I'm sorry. I'll ask a18 question while he goes through his paperwork.19 A couple of things. In my20 Interrogatory GIA-3, the UI response21 referenced their response to the Town of22 Fairfield Question 3, Interrogatories 1. In23 that response, UI lists their environmental24 reports. And the storm water pollution25 control plan submitted states, in Section 53

Page 113

1 that, quote, The post development runoff2 characteristics will not differ significantly3 from the predevelopment conditions.4 By looking at the diagram and5 trying to go to scale, it seems to me that6 what we're doing is adding an addition of7 level land covered in a semi-pervious8 material approximately 160-by-80. I may be9 wrong. I was trying to go by your scale.

10 And a substantial addition of this kind of11 level area with less permeability than the12 current slope, grasses does not seem to be13 addressed with a casual conclusion that it14 will not differ significantly in runoff15 characteristics.16 In other words, what I'm17 saying here is we currently have the paved18 area and then a rolling -- a sloping area19 that goes down to the surrounding site. What20 will happen now is there will be an extension21 of the level area, and that's going to22 necessarily --23 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Giandurco,24 I'm going to object to the testimony that25 you're providing.



30 (Pages 114 to 117)

Page 114

1 Mr. Chairman, if he wants to2 ask a question, we're happy to answer the3 question, but there's a lot of --4 MR. GIANDURCO: But my5 question is --6 MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you.7 MR. GIANDURCO: -- in what way8 is this -- how can we conclude that this will9 not differ significantly?

10 It seems to be a large11 addition of level area.12 MR. McDERMOTT: To summarize13 the question, correct me if I'm wrong, storm14 water runoff, how do we ensure that we're not15 increasing the amount of runoff following16 construction?17 MR. GIANDURCO: Yes.18 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): The19 estimated -- estimated runoff coefficient was20 calculated to be .47 after, but -- this is21 postconstruction.22 MR. GIANDURCO: And what is it23 currently?24 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): It's25 currently 3.7.

Page 115

1 MR. GIANDURCO: So it's 23.7?2 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):3 Three -- point three seven. So there's a4 differential of .10, 10 percent.5 MR. GIANDURCO: Oh, I see,6 .37.7 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):8 Because I -- I think what you were saying9 before about the area of concern is -- is

10 really pervious, not semi-pervious. It's11 typical of what we use in substations, you12 know, traprock. So it is going to have the13 capability for the rainwater and everything14 else to percolate and get into the ground.15 MR. GIANDURCO: Okay. I see.16 Is -- is that considered a substantial17 increase? I mean, just roughly, it looks to18 me that that's an increase of about 15, 17,19 18 percent. Is that not significant, or is20 it considered appropriate in terms of not21 differing significantly? The reason I ask is22 I have wetlands on my property. I --23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wait a24 minute. Let the man answer. You asked a25 question. Let him answer.

Page 116

1 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):2 Based on the site conditions and the acreage3 that -- we feel that that is sufficient.4 MR. GIANDURCO: Okay. Go5 ahead.6 MR. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman, I7 can I ask one question? Mr. Katreczko, you8 mentioned the discharges of runoff. Can you9 put that in an analogous form? Is that the

10 equivalent to roughly what would be expected11 normally on a residential lot, two12 residential lots, something like that?13 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): I14 can't really equate it to how many15 residential lots that would be equal to. I'm16 not an engineer, so I can't.17 MR. ASHTON: You're not an18 engineer.19 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): I20 didn't do that analysis.21 MR. ASHTON: Gee, I thought22 you were. Okay. I couldn't get it.23 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. You24 mentioned that the soil that will be25 excavated will stay on the property, and on

Page 117

1 the map I saw the location. How long will2 that stay on the property and why is that3 being stored on the property?4 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): The5 -- it's -- the reason it would be -- the6 reason it's stored on the property is because7 of the civil construction portion of the8 project will -- might have some access -- you9 know, excess soil so it's going to be stored

10 there temporarily. And it gets characterized11 to see if it's hazardous or not. If it can12 be reused, it will be put in places where it13 can be reused. But if it's deemed to be14 hazardous, has hazardous constituents in15 there, then it will be taken off-site.16 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. So once17 the site is completed --18 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): It's19 just not going to be there permanently.20 MR. TOURNAS: -- it won't be21 there. In Number 13, question was asked what22 capacity will the expanded station operate at23 its present condition? The answer was a24 proposed modification would ensure that the25 substation operates below its rated capacity.



31 (Pages 118 to 121)

Page 118

1 However, it still didn't answer the question2 of the existing station, what capacity it is3 currently running at.4 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): I5 would just like to clarify. Which6 interrogatory are you referring to?7 MR. TOURNAS: It's 13 on the8 docket, TOU3, it's Tournas 3, Set 3.9 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Tournas,

10 what question, set number?11 MR. TOURNAS: It's Number 4012 on Interrogatory TOU3-4-40 on the Siting13 Council's Dockets, Number 13, as evidence.14 THE WITNESS (Rossetti):15 Mr. Bradt will answer that16 question.17 THE WITNESS (Bradt): So the18 substation will be operating -- actually19 right now, the substation is operating very20 close to its capacity. I think one of the21 other questions that was asked by yourself or22 someone else, how many times have we actually23 reached the peak capacity in the last several24 years, and the answer, that it reached the25 full peak capacity, that's a hundred percent

Page 119

1 of its capacity one time.2 And so there's a little bit of3 randomness to that. But we -- I would say4 we're essentially at our peak capacity, that5 substation. We do have a small margin left.6 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. The7 question before that, yes, you said that8 would be running at full capacity once in the9 last seven summers. And then you answered,

10 the average of the last seven years is11 90 percent. To me, it doesn't make sense to12 me that the average is 90 years for the --13 90 percent for the past 7 years, and it's14 running now close to a hundred percent. I'm15 sorry, but I don't understand.16 THE WITNESS (Bradt):17 No, I understand.18 MR. TOURNAS: Okay.19 THE WITNESS (Bradt):20 There's -- there is some variability in the21 seasonal peak loading that we see at our22 substations. And -- and from summer to23 summer, they're never identical. So what we24 do is we have to plan for the peak to make25 sure that we don't have a reliability concern

Page 120

1 if the loading exceeds that level. So it's2 not unusual to see the average to be3 something less than that value.4 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. Just, I5 guess, the question -- this is Interrogatory6 GIA-18, which is number 14 on the -- I'm not7 sure the procedure or the docket -- document8 that was sent out the other day.9 It was in regards to the

10 new -- the possible plans to install a new11 substation in Fairfield in the year 2020.12 And the answer is that you do not have any13 plans at this time. Can I ask why that plan14 was changed?15 DR. KLEMENS: Could you use16 that microphone --17 MR. TOURNAS: Oh, I'm sorry.18 DR. KLEMENS: -- in front of19 you so we can hear what you're saying. Put20 it closer to you.21 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Bradt, can22 you answer that question?23 THE WITNESS (Bradt): Yes.24 The Fairfield substation that you're25 referring to, in year 2020, has been

Page 121

1 deferred. And one of the most significant2 factors is the -- this upgrade at this3 substation.4 This substation adds5 significant capacity to this area, this6 Bridgeport/Fairfield area. And we consider7 it a modest upgrade that defers a very costly8 substation upgrade in future years.9 MR. TOURNAS: If that

10 substation that we're questioning in 2020 was11 built, what areas would that supply? Would12 it be the same area that the Hawthorne is13 supplying, Norwalk to New Haven?14 THE WITNESS (Bradt):15 Conceivably, yes.16 MR. GIANDURCO: Are those --17 are those -- excuse me. Are those plans18 subject to change? You're saying now there19 is no plan on the horizon to build a new20 substation. Is that subject to change in the21 interim?22 THE WITNESS (Bradt): Based on23 our most current load forecasts, based on24 that and the -- this project here that we're25 proposing, we don't see the need for it



32 (Pages 122 to 125)

Page 122

1 within the ten-year planning horizon. We do2 not look out past the ten-year horizon.3 MR. GIANDURCO: Okay. That's4 perfect.5 While he's looking, I have6 another question. We've addressed several of7 my most -- my most important -- several of my8 most important concerns involve light9 pollution. I'm pleased with the concept of

10 the modification of the plan in terms of not11 having nighttime illumination, and I would12 hope that the Council will stipulate to that.13 One thing that I am concerned14 about is sort of the visual impact of -- of15 the additional masts. And I found it, you16 know, unusual. Again, I did a sort of17 measurement of the proposal, just doing a18 simulation. And it appears what we're doing19 is adding to the footprint something between20 50 and 60 percent additional siting --21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you --22 can you get to a question, please?23 MR. GIANDURCO: Yes. It's an24 introduction. I'm sorry, Chairman. But I25 don't understand, if we are adding

Page 123

1 approximately 50 percent more ground area,2 why we need triple the number of lightning3 masts. We have -- we have gone through this,4 but I just -- if that could be clarified.5 Because it seems to me that perhaps there's6 some reason that has not been -- been7 clarified so far.8 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): So to9 try to explain why the lightning masts are

10 proposed how they are, the existing three11 masts, obviously, protect the majority of the12 substation with the exception of that eastern13 portion. However, after, with the proposed14 expansion, there is an additional area. But15 it's not so much dependent on the land area16 as it is the equipment height, the height of17 the lightning masts, the lightning levels,18 the isochronic levels in the area.19 So to explain it a little20 easier, the lightning masts kind of create a21 zone of protection around them. The existing22 lightning masts are located in the center of23 the substation, so they provide an area of24 protection directly around them.25 When we add additional

Page 124

1 equipment to the west side of the site, now2 we need to carry that protection along to the3 equipment on the west side, which requires us4 to put lightning masts, not only around that5 existing equipment, but also the equipment6 that passes over to the capacitor banks and7 their arrangement.8 So as we look at the models9 showing the areas that are protected by these

10 lightning masts, we determined the number11 that is required in order to protect the12 equipment for the height proposed. And from13 that analysis, that's the number of masts14 that is required, per UI standards, to15 achieve 100 percent protection of the new16 equipment.17 MR. GIANDURCO: Okay. And as18 I said, it did seem excessive in terms of the19 tripling of the number. And then --20 THE WITNESS (Rossetti):21 Actually, I have a question, if I could ask?22 Would -- would the residents, or the folks23 rather, have more masts at a lower height?24 THE CHAIRPERSON: You know,25 you'll -- you'll get a chance at a subsequent

Page 125

1 because --2 THE WITNESS (Rossetti): Sorry3 about that. I apologize.4 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Rossetti5 missed that part of the witness prep session6 that I had with him, where I explained his7 role was to answer the questions, not ask8 them. I apologize.9 MR. GIANDURCO: We missed the

10 intervenor prep session, so we're even.11 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. I just12 have a few more questions. Mostly, I think13 it consists of our visit today. Sorry about14 that. We mentioned there were some pink15 flags on GE's property. Would you know what16 they were there for?17 THE WITNESS (Katreczko): Yes.18 They were to delineate the inland wetland19 that was identified.20 MR. TOURNAS: Wetlands? Okay.21 THE WITNESS (Katreczko):22 Habitat, yeah.23 MR. GIANDURCO: This will be24 my final question. I'm looking at my25 interrogatory GIA20 and its effects on



33 (Pages 126 to 129)

Page 126

1 neighboring wetlands. And I know that2 members of the Council have addressed this,3 but in more specific ways. I have wetlands4 on my property, so I'm very familiar with --5 that there are wetlands maps available. Mine6 is of the federal wetlands in addition to --7 say, your response is that the wetlands are8 outside the UI property and will not be9 impacted.

10 Is it possible for you to11 provide a map showing the exact distance12 between the site and the runoff areas and13 existing wetlands? Is that possible, like,14 as in addition to this petition? Because,15 like, when saying that the wetlands are16 outside the UI property, again, it appears,17 just from a visual inspection today, that18 there are vernal pools.19 And I know that my wetlands is20 very, very close to the property as well and21 that there are several more in the vicinity.22 Is it possible that you could provide a23 wetlands map, if not today?24 THE CHAIRPERSON: That25 could -- that could be something, when you

Page 127

1 have your wetlands expert at our subsequent2 hearing, that you could provide that3 information so I can --4 MR. McDERMOTT: Sure. We'll5 go out and do a radius around the -- around6 the substation, and we can provide that.7 THE CHAIRPERSON: And there8 are town -- well, presumably the town has9 wetland maps as well.

10 MR. McDERMOTT: I'm sure they11 do.12 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. I guess13 my last question. Regarding the noise level,14 and I know, you know, we went through most of15 that, but my concern, and I may not16 understand all that, which I don't17 understand, but it shows the noise level can18 be as high as 51 decibels, and -- in a19 residential area, and the Town of Fairfield's20 limit is 45 within the zoning.21 Can you explain a little to us22 about the noise level ratio of, you know,23 going as high as 51, however, the limit is24 45?25 MR. McDERMOTT: Yes. We

Page 128

1 absolutely can do that. I just need to do a2 quick shuffling of seats and ask Mr. Baker,3 who is our acoustic specialist, to come up.4 And he has, so we're all set. Thank you.5 THE WITNESS (Baker): Yes, we6 did do a noise study, a noise model for this7 project. And the worst case predicted noise8 level is below 45.9 MR. TOURNAS: But it did say

10 it could go high as 51?11 THE WITNESS (Baker): I -- I12 believe what you may be referring to is the13 measured ambient conditions, which include14 traffic influences and -- and other15 non-substation noise sources.16 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. At that17 51, would you be able to tell us when that18 was taken? What time?19 THE WITNESS (Baker): The peak20 periods align with high traffic volume, so21 you know, early morning hours, rush hour or22 evening hours.23 MR. TOURNAS: Well, you're not24 being specific.25 MR. McDERMOTT: Mr. Baker,

Page 129

1 maybe you could refer to the report and2 identify the figure that shows the time3 calculations.4 MR. TOURNAS: I have the5 report here. If you could tell me what page,6 I can refer to it.7 THE WITNESS (Baker): I guess8 I'm a little bit confused on the question.9 Can you repeat, please?

10 MR. TOURNAS: You measured11 ambient sound level in the vicinity of the12 substation ranging from 34 to 51.13 THE WITNESS (Baker): Yes.14 MR. TOURNAS: I'm asking what15 time of the day and where was that taken when16 it measured at 51?17 THE WITNESS (Baker): We18 actually had four different measurement19 locations. The 51, referring to Table three20 two occurred at NML 2, on page three six, of21 the project noise evaluation. And the22 specific time of the 51 appears to have23 occurred -- and this is in reference to24 Figure three three, page 3-4, roughly25 7:30-ish.



34 (Pages 130 to 133)

Page 130

1 MR. McDERMOTT: 7:30 a.m. or2 p.m.?3 THE WITNESS (Baker): That is4 a.m.5 MR. GIANDURCO: So 7:30. Just6 to follow up. In other words, this increase7 usually came from traffic on an adjacent8 road. Is that what you were finding?9 THE WITNESS (Baker): Correct.

10 MR. TOURNAS: Okay. No other11 questions.12 MR. GIANDURCO: I have one13 more that I did leave out, and I apologize.14 It's brief. In your response to GIA17 on the15 esthetic impact, your response says UI,16 quote, can, unquote, place disguising plant17 life around the site without specificity.18 You mentioned before -- the Council asked19 that perhaps you might use something that is20 not attractive to the local deer population.21 I would like to know if you22 could give a concrete plan in the future23 related to disguising plant life?24 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'll just --25 if this were to be approved, there will be a

Page 131

1 subsequent detailed -- we call it D and M2 plan, in which all these details, including3 the exact type of vegetation, the fencing4 material, will all be determined in that, but5 we're -- we're not there yet. So those6 details will -- will come if this, you know,7 project moves forward.8 MR. GIANDURCO: Thank you,9 Mr. Chairman.

10 MR. TOURNAS: So any questions11 we have relating to that or any evidence that12 we should hold off until that meeting?13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, if14 you -- if you have specific questions now15 relating to that, you can ask them now, but16 they may not have the answer until that17 period so...18 MR. TOURNAS: So that would be19 a no. Okay. Thank you.20 MR. GIANDURCO: I'm done.21 MR. TOURNAS: I can wait.22 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right.23 Thank you. Thank both of you.24 We'll now recess until 7 p.m.,25 at which time we'll commence the public

Page 132

1 comment session. We're going for dinner now2 so we may, if time permits, depending on how3 long the public session, after that we could4 resume the evidentiary, or if not, we'll do5 it at are -- we're going to have a subsequent6 meeting, so --7 (Whereupon, the witnesses were8 excused, and the above proceedings were9 adjourned at 5:10 p.m.)

10111213141516171819202122232425

Page 133

1 CERTIFICATE

2

3 I hereby certify that the foregoing 132

4 pages are a complete and accurate

5 computer-aided transcription of my original

6 verbatim notes taken of the Council Meeting

7 in Re: Petition No. 1120, THE UNITED

8 ILLUMINATING COMPANY PETITION FOR A

9 DECLARATORY RULING THAT NO CERTIFICATE OF

10 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY AND PUBLIC NEED

11 IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO

12 THE EXISTING HAWTHORNE SUBSTATION LOCATED AT

13 180 HAWTHORNE DRIVE, FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT,

14 which was held before ROBERT STEIN,

15 Chairperson, and SENATOR JAMES J. MURPHY,

16 JR., Vice Chairperson, at the Education

17 Center, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 501 Kings

18 Highway East, Fairfield, Connecticut, on

19 March 31, 2015.

20

21

22 ____________________________

23 Robert G. Dixon, CVR-M 857

Court Reporter

24 UNITED REPORTERS, INC.

90 Brainard Road, Suite 103

25 Hartford, Connecticut 06114



35 (Pages 134 to 136)

Page 134

1 I N D E X WITNESSES PAGE

2 DENNIS QUINN 11 MATTHEW P. CLOUD

3 RONALD M. ROSSETTI TONY BUCCHERI

4 DAVID BRADT BOHDAN KATRECZKO

5 RYAN BAKER DR. AMY WILLIAMS

6 RICK LANDINO EXAMINERS: PAGE

7 Mr. Mercier 22 Senator Murphy 34

8 Mr. Ashton 50 Dr. Bell 69

9 Dr. Klemens 73 Mr. Hannon 89

10 Mr. Lynch 99 Mr. Tournas 105

11 Mr. Giandurco 11212

EXHIBITS13 (Received in evidence.)

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE14 II-B-1 Petition received Nov. 5, 2014, 21

with attachments (subject to15 Critical Energy Infrastructure

Information16

a.) Development & Management Plan17

b.) Affidavit of Service of Notice,18 dated October 29, 201419 II-B-2 Petitioner’s Affidavit of 21

Service of Notice, dated20 December 2, 201421 II-B-3 E-mail from Adla Reddy, 21

UI Project Manager, regarding22 photo rendering of proposed

Pavement area at Hawthorne23 Substation, with Photo Simulation

Attachment, dated Dec. 5, 201424

II-B-4 Petitioner’s Response to 2125 Council Interrogatories,

Page 135

1 I N D E X (Cont'd.) EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE

2 II-B-5 Letter to Town of Easton 21 regarding Project Notice,

3 dated January 22, 20154 II-B-6 Petitioner’s Materials, 21

with cover letter, presented5 to Town of Fairfield and

residents at February 4, 20156 public information meeting,

dated February 27, 20157

a.) Slideshow Materials8

b.) FAQ Sheet9

c.) Site Plan10

d.) Visibility Analysis11

II-B-7 Petitioner’s Affidavit of 2112 Sign Posting, dated March 13, 201513 II-B-8 Petitioner’s Response to 21

Council Interrogatories, Set Two,14 dated March 16, 201515 II-B-9 Petitioner’s Response to 21

Town of Fairfield16 Interrogatories, Set One,

dated March 16, 201517

II-B-10 Petitioner’s Response to 2118 Town of Fairfield

Interrogatories, Set Two,19 dated March 23, 201520 II-B-11 Petitioner’s Response to 21

Arthur Tournas Interrogatories,21 Set One, dated March 23, 201522 II-B-12 Petitioner’s Response to Arthur 21

Tournas Interrogatories, Set Two,23 dated March 23, 201524 II-B-13 Petitioner’s Response to 21

Arthur Tournas Interrogatories,25 Set Three, dated March 23, 2015

Page 136

1 I N D E X (Cont'd.)EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE

2 II-B-14 Petitioner’s Response to 21 Vincent Giandurco Interrogatories,

3 dated March 23, 20154 II-B-15 Hawthorne Substation Project 21

Noise Evaluation Report prepared5 by Black & Veatch and Related

cover letter, dated March 24, 20156

II-B-16 Petitioner’s Letter Regarding 217 the Electric and Magnetic Field

Assessment of the Hawthorne8 Substation, dated March 24, 2015,

with attachments (subject to9 Critical Energy Infrastructure

Information Protective Order dated10 December 11, 2014)111213141516171819202122232425

Documents

CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL Transcript of PETITION …...Mar 31, 2015 · CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL Transcript of PETITION NUMBER 1120 March 31, 2015 VOLUME 1 Printed On: April 15,